Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: Why the fuck would he care? (Score 1) 259

You're absolutely right. Babies should have to work for their formula!

I hear Trump's next executive order will make Babies great again, by allowing them to work in coal mines, again. After all, why waste valuable canaries when there are so many lazy babies, lying around just expecting people to take care of them? It's time those babies got off Big Mother's teat and started earning their keep!

Comment Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score 1) 250

Not taking the bait. You're not going to spin this around.

Yeah, I understand that. If you were to acknowledge that you are exactly what you hate, it would be a pretty humbling blow to your ego.

We're done here.

We were done a long time ago, but you are just so unintentionally funny, that I just can't stop...

Comment Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score 1) 250

. I am sorry if that makes you uncomfortable but you can't wish away reality by calling people names.

You mean like calling people "chicken little" because they disagree with you?

Real observations don't care for politics.

No, they don't, but do you even know what a "real observation" is? Because all I've seen from you is personal attacks and (ironically) references to the entertainment industry. The amount of hypocrisy you are capable of displaying is truly amazing.

Comment Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score 1) 250

Do you have anything new to bring to the debate or will you finally concede your defeat through continued attempts on my character / behaviour?

What debate? You conceded your position when you failed to reply to my original statement that your evidence wasn't useful to your argument. Maybe you can't see that because you hold other people to a different standard than you hold yourself? Everything since has been an attempt to educate you on how not to be an ass in public. Let's give it a few months and see if you've learned anything...

Comment Re: Correcting myself (Score 1) 724

I always thought of it as 'engineer' being the more general term that means (for the most part) you have the engineering degree. For the licensed part the term to use is 'Professional engineer' which means you've gone the additional steps beyond the degree to become licensed in your field. So while declaring himself an engineer in a letter to the licensing board might not be the best move it still isn't the same as if he said he was a P.E.

In common practice, claiming to be an engineer is the same as claiming to be a professional engineer. If you want to weasel it, you have to claiming that you work in "engineering". I've had the distinction explained to me, in person, by someone who has worked in the enforcement division of a professional engineering board.

Comment Re: Correcting myself (Score 1) 724

So because of falling bridges, you can't solder your own radio?

No? The question mark is because I don't understand why you would write something that nonsensical. Fixing a radio has nothing to do with Engineers.

Isn't it much more meaningful to require certifications and such for specific projects rather than for extremely vague words such as "engineer" in a broad sweep?

For good or ill, no. Engineer was chosen as the term to represent a licensed, trained expert in particular fields. You can debate the merits of what word was chosen, but the choice was made a long time ago, and it's unlikely to change now. The simple fact is that if you claim to be an engineer you are claiming to have the certifications and qualifications to perform specific types of work (depending on the type of engineer you claim to be), and you are claiming that as an engineer you are liable for the consequences of your work. You should be aware that you don't need to be an engineer to perform most work. The exceptions where you do need to be an engineer are things like designing industrial machinery and bridges. You don't need to be an engineer to build the machinery or the bridge, depending on state law you might not even need to be licensed engineer to work on the design, but you need an engineer to approve the design and sign their name to it. Of course, it should be noted that the approving engineer could face criminal penalties if the design fails and someone is injured or killed.

From the article, it's clear that the guy in question is in trouble solely for claiming to be an engineer to the board that regulates who can claim to be an engineer. It should also be noted that his punishment, a $500 fine, is a slap on the wrist.

Comment Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score 1) 250

Show me where I did this?

Continue to run around as though the sky is falling. you're going to be a nuisance one way or another anyways.

At that point, I hadn't written anything other than your "evidence" is actually consistent with mainstream views on climate change. Rather than own up to the fact that the anecdote wasn't useful or explaining why you thought it didn't fit into the theory, you immediately resorted insults and ad hominem dismissal.

Sure didn't stop you from escalating.

Escalation? What escalation? All I see is you boorishly complaining about irrelevancies, then whining about how nobody wants to listen to your "wisdom".

We all have the right to say what we want without fear of physical violence.

It'd be nice if people who believe that also thought they had a duty to use that right responsibly. All too often I see verbal bullies hiding behind "free speech" as shield from the predictable consequences of the offensive things they say.

This fits the tried and true profiles of mental disorder, but I could be wrong.

From your track record, you probably are. In fact, I'd say in this case you've layered incorrect opinions so deep, you probably need professional help to come back to terms with reality.

You can attempt to attack my character all you want, call me names etc, it won't change the truth of my observations.

If you can't understand the difference between behaviour and character, how can we do anything but doubt the truth of your (biased) observations?

Comment Re:Oh, this is going to be great (Score 1) 250

It's mostly the online community that's lost it's ability for critical thinking.

Actually, it's mostly you who appears to have lost the ability to think critically (if you ever had it). Simply put, If you were able to think critically you wouldn't have resorted to personal attacks when I told you that your anecdotal story doesn't back up the position that you claimed it did.

Regardless of the laws of where I live, the Internet is not a place where free speech is appreciated or respected.

Maybe, or maybe people just don't like it when you act like an arrogant, condescending jackass. Especially when you're acting like that and unequivocally wrong at the same time. Free speech means the government doesn't interfere with your right to say what you like, it doesn't mean people have to like you or the odious things that you post. People can like free speech and still think you're an overbearing, know-nothing ass who they'd rather not associate with.

Comment Re:Many examples, if you remember history (Score 1) 206

No, the simple answer was the reason and not some weird illuminati conspiracy theory about environmentalists with vast amounts of political power controlling everything from the shadows.

My point was that at the time, some people did consider plastic bags more environmentally friendly.

It was known, (especially in areas where they relied on tourists visiting beaches) but ignored for financial reasons. It's not "history" to me.

If you say so, though I'm not sure how people would have known that plastic bags would be a trash nightmare before they were in common use.

Comment Re:Many examples, if you remember history (Score 2) 206

I think there is some truth to both of those versions of events, in that plastic bags were considered both more environmentally friendly and they cheaper when they were introduced. The problems of plastic bags not decomposing wasn't yet a known issue when they were first being introduced in the 70s, and at the time, it took about 1/4 of the energy to produce a plastic bag as a paper one, so it seemed like an environmental win at the time. But while the adoption of plastic bags may have been supported by environmentalists at the time, it's pretty clear the reason stores started offering the choice of plastic or paper was because they could buy 4 plastic bags for every paper bag. That's a clear cost saving and the fact that some customers found the plastic bags more convenient that paper (because they had handles) made it also a goodwill win. Blaming environmentalists for the change, however, is so one-sided as to be beyond the point of self-delusion.

Comment Re: Irrelevant Studies (Score 1) 296

What's weird is if this isn't a legitimate way to test the Chicken, why did they get the expected results from the other 4 restaurant chains that were tested? They used two independent labs to verify the results, and both times the results indicated significantly less chicken in the subway "meat". According to this article about the testing they tested 3 samples taken from 2 sample sandwiches of each of the products tested (3 from other companies and 2 subway sandwiches). The subway meat was such a large outlier that they initially thought there was a problem with the testing so they tested 5 additional samples of each of the subway products but got the same results.

In any case, the testing certainly seems to show that there is something significantly different about the chicken procured from Subway that was tested by the labs.

Slashdot Top Deals

If this is a service economy, why is the service so bad?