Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:In Soviet Russia (Score 2) 147

Right. So let's take a look at how this "excerpt the gotcha" plays into that.

Slashdot writes about Zuckerberg:

a later exchange between Sandberg and Podesta showed that Mark Zuckerberg was looking to get in on the action a bit, and perhaps curry favor with Podesta and the Clinton camp in shaping public policy.

Except that the email from Shelly about Zuckerberg very clearly begins:

Mark is meeting with people to learn more about next steps for his philanthropy and social action and it’s hard to imagine someone better placed or more experienced than you to help him. He’s begun to think about whether/how he might want to shape advocacy efforts to support his philanthropic priorities and is particularly interested in meeting people who could help him understand how to move the needle on the specific public policy issues he cares most about

Likewise on the other email from Cheryl. They mention the "She came over and was magical with my kids" re. Clinton. They don't bother mentioning the reason for Hillary's visit, which can be seen in what she's replying to:

To: Sheryl Sandberg
Subject: At a loss for words

Can't imagine your pain, but know that you are surrounded by people who love you. Mary and I are praying for you, the kids and, in our Catholic way also for Dave.

... and the part before the excerpt:

Thank you – means a lot to me that you reached out.

And I like that you are praying for Dave. I have to believe in heaven now.

This wasn't some buddy-buddy campaign visit, this was a "person I know's husband just died" visit. Likewise, the implication that they're supposed to give here is that they know her because of Facebook. No bothering to mention that the reason that they actually know her is because she was Larry Summers' Chief of Staff during the Clinton administration.

Almost anything can be made to look sinister when you take it completely out of context. Which is the whole purpose of these emails.

Furthermore, do you honestly think you couldn't do the exact same thing by picking through the Trump campaign's internal messaging? Do you have any clue how many people of note a major campaign interacts with, how many people work for them, etc? We know given Trumps record on server security that hacking him would have been a breeze, but miraculously nobody bothered. Why do you think that is?

Lastly: take everything you read with a grain of salt. I know everyone's reaction to statements that emails could have been altered (and scattered amongst real ones) is going to be "You just don't want to discuss them!" No, the reason you should take things with a grain of salt is that the other anti-Clinton hacks this year have done exactly that. Leaks posted by the hackers in different places involved cases where they had involved changing the same file to say different things (such as a donation list where they added a donation from Soros to a Russian democracy activist, but had different values for the donation in different versions of their release), cases where files were dated to after the hack occurred, and cases where file metadata showed the changes they'd been making. Salting real data with fake is something that they've been doing this year, so it'd be naive to think that they're just going to stop doing it now. Come on, even the most die-hard Clinton hater is going to be hard pressed to actually believe that the Clinton Foundation has a directory sitting around literally called "Pay for Play".

Yes, the majority will be real. But don't be naive when viewing them and assume that you can just take everything at face value.

Comment Re: Why even have elections? (Score 5, Insightful) 147


Because we hate Wall Street, let's instead put a billionaire real estate scammer whose entire adult life has been spent trying to kiss up to investors and banks to get loans for his businesses, and who refuses to reveal what banks he's in debt to in power.

Because we oppose the Libyan conflict, let's put in power someone who wants to bomb the children of terrorists, insists that waterboarding isn't harsh enough, wants more nations to have nuclear weapons, wants to build a new generation of nuclear weapons, and spent his first security briefing repeatedly asking why we're bothering to have nuclear weapons if we're not going to use them.

Because we oppose free trade, let's put in power someone who spent his entire career - up until he decided to rebrand himself as a populist for this election - championing free trade, built his empire on dumped steel and undocumented workers, and - until it was shut down as a scam - championed the benefits of outsourcing on his Trump University page.

I'm not even sure where you're getting that Clinton has been big "drill baby drill" champion, but Trump has literally called for "drill baby drill" in speeches, including lifting all federal restrictions on offshore drilling and elimination of the EPA.

So if you want to cut off your nose to spite your face, go right ahead, but please understand why many people will not be joining at you.

And if your argument is "I'm not supporting either of them" - if you don't vote for one, you're supporting the other. Not to the degree of voting directly for the other, but you're still supporting them. Because that's the way the US electoral system works.

Comment Re:But what is a lie? (Score 1) 125

No but :-) see you explained and made clear why you added the "but". And the dictionary definition allows for that usage.

A problem is when people use "but" as a quick way to divert from something, as part of a smoke screen.

Yes I'd love to meet up, awesome, really great, that'll be fantastic, but not today.

Comment Re:But what is a lie? (Score 2) 125

I consider myself to be on the Autism Spectrum scale. When I tell stories I want to be detailed; but I have learned that people don't want the full story and prefer summaries. Summaries so short that I more or less have to reinvent the scenario in order to get my point or question out and paid attention to. Since it's not the complete truth; it's a lie. But I want to tell the complete truth but people don't want to hear all the details and angles. It's a profound discrepancy in human communication that I have adapted to; the lie that communicates the essential but not exact truth. Is it a lie when people want/expect you to actually do it?

Lying isn't black and white. You have to interpret how much and what information a person is looking for. You are then lying only when you know what information a person is looking for and if they would care about the inaccuracy of the statement.

I agree it is a problem. I did a kind of psychological exercise where we had to pay attention to lying. The wording and precision really mattered. So even to start a sentence with, "Yes but..." was considered a lie, because the "but" negates the "yes" to some degree. It creates a sort of smoke screen, like, he is saying yes, whereas he really means no, and disguising it under the "yes".

If one learnt to pay attention to when one says "yes but" then one can go on to start to notice other inconsistencies. For example, how easily we invent excuses for things.

I guess when it comes to summaries, and having to make summaries, the issue may be, does the summary alter the person's response or decision? For example, if I have to meet someone and I arrive late and they are wondering whether to be upset with me, does my summary say: "I messed up, I'm late, I'm sorry" which leads them to the feeling that it was my fault, or is my summary worded to make a different effect: "I left on time, awful traffic" which leaves out the detail that I stopped for a grande latte mocha with raspberry syrup on the way?

In other words, does that detail matter? The issue is that most adults lie by telling the 95% of the story which is true, and leaving out the 5% detail which would land them in trouble. So if that detail is important, then it needs to be said.

Comment Re:Too bad for men. (Score 1) 132

Let's help make it a bit clearer. Let's say you're the average US male height, weight and build - 176cm / 59" and 83kg/184lbs and a bench press of 165lbs. Picture an environment where everywhere you go, you're surrounded by men who average 192cm (64"), 105kg (231lbs) - with the weight difference being primarily muscle - with a bench press of 400lbs. On average. Basically, the average person around you is a NFL linebacker. Now picture that a good number of them are sexually attracted to you. That they're much more likely to be involved in violent crime than you. That a disturbingly high percentage of your friends and family have been molested or raped by them. Perhaps you yourself.

Try to understand the difference in what the world is like for others.

Comment Re:Easy Solution (Score 5, Interesting) 106

That could be an interesting legal paradox. Build two identical drones and have them take off at the exact same time filming each other, then send in the video as evidence of a crime. Because they were used to document a crime, both were legal; but then there was no crime being committed, so they weren't being used to document a crime, and were thus illegal... and thus both were documenting a crime, and thus legal...

Comment Re:I say BS (Score 2) 165

the improvements have been minor in battery tech... the main improvement has been in lowering energy use in the chips (shrinking mainly)

Flatly contradicted by comparing old batteries with new, amp hours vs. volume and mass. For the past couple decades, batteries have doubled in energy density once every 8 years or so. Do you perchance have an old cell phone lying around at home? Check out its amp-hour rating and see how big/heavy it is compared to the amp hour rating and size/mass of your current cell phone's battery.

and the article say's nothing about 10x, so yes this is bullshit..

No, it is not. The maximum theoretical energy density of li-air is about 10x that of the maximum theoretical for LCO/graphite li-ion.

The problem is chemistry, no matter how much you want to believe it's possible to make a battery that is anywhere near as energy dense as gasoline, the chemistry say's no!!

Once again, false. The maximum gravimetric energy density for li-air is comparable to gasoline (12kWh/kg vs. 13kWh/kg) in the charged state, and significantly better in the discharged state. Now, you don't ever achieve the maximum for a particular chemistry, or even close to it. But then again, for a given amount of EV range, you don't have to, as electric drivetrains are 3-5x more efficient than ICE drivetrains.

Of course, neither of these are actual impediments to EV adoption; nobody gives a rat's arse whether a battery pack is physically larger or heavier than a gas tank (partially or completely offset by the reduced drivetrain mass). The real impediment is price. That said, if cost per unit mass/volume remains the same and energy density improves, then cost per watt hour improves as well.

Comment Re:I say BS (Score 1) 165

Wow, unreferenced rant someone added at the bottom - clearly you've got me there!

Try googling those quotes. The first one is only people quoting Wikipedia. The second one, I downloaded the paper and the conclusion says just the opposite ("A huge interest expressed by the scientific community in the development of Li-air battery is the demand of modern automotive industry. We have identified four major areas. If properly addressed, this technology may enter the commercial phase in the near future." (immediately after going into a wide range of papers on dealing with each of these four topics))

Slashdot Top Deals

Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the time alloted it.