Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Sunk cost fallacy (Score 1) 201

I'm not even going down that old rabbit hole. Yes, it's their legal right. Nobody cares. But this is the part that gets me:

>> Twitter is not the only means of communication.
> That's... kind of entirely my point.

How does forcing them to use a different communication medium stop them from spreading ideas you disagree with? It seems to me that giving them the allure of being the 'stuff THEY don't want you to see' only helps promote it, instead.

Comment Re:Makes Good Sense (Score 1) 87

Weight reduction using batteries in airplanes is nowhere on the horizon. Compared to ground vehicle drive trains, jet engines have a great power to weight ratio, and they use no transmission. Replacing a modern jet with a motor and propeller is in itself a step backward.

On the other hand, airplanes spend a lot of time above the clouds and have a lot of surface area, so perhaps solar panels could provide a measurable range boost on day flights. But I kind of doubt it; solar panels have a terrible power to weight ratio.

This is dumb to even think about until batteries improve dramatically. In fact I suspect it may never actually work, because as technology progresses, it will become viable to manufacture carbon neutral fuel for use in airplanes.

Comment Re:I use them quite a lot (Score 5, Insightful) 258

The story says the engineers found it was used rarely, citing that as the reason for removal.

However, doing something rarely does not mean it is used never, nor does it mean removal is appropriate.

I rarely use a fire extinguisher, yet I keep one in my kitchen and my vehicle. I rarely use my window shutters, but I'm absolutely glad the house has them as they can save a fortune during a storm. I rarely print documents, but I still maintain a printer.

Just because it is rarely used does not mean it isn't useful, nor does it mean it should be removed.

Comment Sunk cost fallacy (Score 1) 201

> And actually, to deal with your question more directly, denying extremists a platform does help prevent the spread of that extremism.

So, you're saying that censorship works? Because for decades we've known that it doesn't change anyone's mind. And that it only makes people curious about these ideas you don't want anyone to see. I think more than a few people here have looked at things precisely because the powers that be told them not to look, whether that be an old MIT lock picking guide, 'zine or pornography, so it's odd to hear people suddenly decide it's worth a try.

Twitter is not the only means of communication. The internet still interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If anything, having the opportunity to engage with them gives everyone the chance to convince them that this is wrong and maybe they shouldn't wander off into the desert to die a violent death.

But maybe you're right. Maybe this time censorship will stop people from thinking bad thoughts. Just because it failed every other time, that's no reason to think it can't work this time... right?

Comment Re:Stealth Layoff (Score 2) 300

The alternative offered? To "quit" his job and lose severance and other benefits. Why he (and them) complied? Because he's near retirement age and doing anything else would be end-of-life economic suicide.

That's an involuntary termination, not quitting. When companies try it generally it is a legal quagmire. If it is even slightly questionable companies will generally offer a huge settlement package rather than risk a drawn-out lawsuit fighting in the courts; and since they're leaving the state the drawn-out lawsuit would be in a state they no longer are local to, further increasing cost.

I'm curious, did you talk with a lawyer before accepting the deal?

Comment Why put MSCs in your eyes to begin with? (Score 4, Insightful) 108

We already know what happened here. Some people in Florida injected mesenchymal stem cells into the eyes of three people. Mesenchymal stem cells are multipotent, but we already know that they do not form eye tissue. There was a different Japanese study that used induced pluripotent stem cells, which actually showed some promise. Those stem cells actually can become any type of tissue and are much more difficult and expensive to obtain.

So, I don't know about you, but I have a lot of questions about how injecting cells that might turn into bone, cartilage, fat or muscle into someone's eyes is supposed to help prevent blindness. And I would expect a lot of good answers and prior studies before having them do that to people.

Slashdot Top Deals

Veni, Vidi, VISA: I came, I saw, I did a little shopping.

Working...