Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

Mr.CRC Re:So what qualifies? (481 comments)

Surely you see the difference between "I hope you die in a car fire" and "I'm going to kill your animals?"

2 days ago
top

In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

Mr.CRC Re:Much as I despise trolls (481 comments)

There is a point to which verbal abuse should be considered to evoke a primal defensive response. I have seen people literally followed around with a harrassing mouth shoved in their faces that they couldn't get away from. While it is honorable to try to defuse a situation like that without resorting to violence, I can also see where someone who is stressed by unknown factors might simply throw a punch. And if I were a judge, in a case like that I might very well just let them walk, considering it legitimate self-defense.

As for internet harrassment, it might be better to sentence people to perform ass kissing services for the harrassed for some period of time. The movement of the justice system away from pushing people to make restitution for harm done, and instead toward universal incarceration for every possible infraction, is a second injustice to victims, as well as being corrosive poison to society. If a guy is an asshole and threatens someone but didn't really mean it, do we really want to spend societal resources to imprison them for TWO FUCKING YEARS! Does anybody ever think? I mean really THINK about the implications of what they are saying when they cheer on the state to put the boot to more faces? Do you really think the "there ought to be a law" model can go on forever without that boot ultimately winding up on your own face?

That we can simply fix all social problems with another law and more imprisonment is going to lead us to our doom.

2 days ago
top

Soda Pop Damages Your Cells' Telomeres

Mr.CRC Re:Not a surprise, but is it just one ingredient? (417 comments)

Why sodium bezoate? What is the basis for thinking that? Do you know of some toxic compound produced when benzoate is metabolized? Or any other toxicological connection between benzoate and cell or DNA harm?

2 days ago
top

Court Rules Parents May Be Liable For What Their Kids Post On Facebook

Mr.CRC Re:You have it wrong. (319 comments)

You are advocating that one person should be liable for the actions of another person.

This is sloppy without clarifying how the different categories of criminal vs. civil liability should be handled.

Holding parents criminally liable is intractable because there is no certain way to control a child or any other person. I'm talking absolute control. Any law that holds you responsible for forces that you cannot control must be invalidated, or else societal disintegration will eventually result. Such inherent contradictions predictably lead to disaster.

Furthermore, there are also laws making it felony child abuse to employ nearly any sort of corporal punishment (not that I advocate that) and laws are interpreted so liberally that nearly any attempt to employ physical force to restrain, control, or restrict the behavior of a child may be interpreted as felony child abuse. So our society wants a person to be liable for the actions of a child, and also makes them criminally liable if they try to use force to discipline a child.

Also, as has been mentioned by others, children are legally mandated by the state to attend school. Parents cannot possibly control a child while they are at school. Yet they should be prosecuted if the child commits a crime while under state mandated separation from the parents?

This is all complete insanity. Of course, I only expect matters to get much, much worse...

4 days ago
top

2014 Nobel Prize In Physics Awarded To the Inventors of the Blue LED

Mr.CRC Re:LED lighting (243 comments)

Almost no media accounts of energy savings using LEDs vs. HIDs are normalized for lumens.

about two weeks ago
top

2014 Nobel Prize In Physics Awarded To the Inventors of the Blue LED

Mr.CRC Re:As well they should. (243 comments)

Top binned Royal Blue Cree XP-E, XP-E2, XT-E, and Lumileds Rebel and "M" LEDs that I'm working with in the lab are pushing 55% conversion efficiency electrical to optical. Green OTOH is always about 1/3 of this, and red is 1/2 to 2/3. These are the efficiencies for current densities in the range of 0.35 to 1.0A/mm^2, which is the typical range of test to absolute maximum currents. Die temperatures at about 70-85 deg C.

Soraa LEDs might be reaching about 66-75% conversion efficiency (LED die only, not incl. phosphor). I will be sampling some soon to test this.

This is becoming a truly remarkable and world changing technology.

about two weeks ago
top

Glut of Postdoc Researchers Stirs Quiet Crisis In Science

Mr.CRC Re:More Education is the Key (283 comments)

Part of the problem is low interest rates, set by the central economic planners at the Fed. 0% for short money is an emergency level, yet it's been 6 years of this shit. Interest rates should be HIGH, around 5-7% for intermediate term money would be good.

The .gov needs to just END all "aid" for paying for college. Then people would stop borrowing to pay for college. The price would collapse, and vast numbers of administrators and economically useless liberal arts ideology degree programs would vanish. There is no need to borrow to pay for college, unless the price has been artificially inflated. The same with home prices. High interest rates would reduce home prices to levels more in line with people's incomes.

about two weeks ago
top

DoJ: Law Enforcement Can Impersonate People On Facebook

Mr.CRC Re:facebook facebook facebook... (191 comments)

Then you'll get arrested, they will demand your Facebook password, then lock you up indefinitely when you can't produce it.

Or if they can't do that now, they will eventually. Basically where we're headed folks is, the government can do anything it wants to you, any time.

This simply follows from asking the government to do everything for you.

about two weeks ago
top

DoJ: Law Enforcement Can Impersonate People On Facebook

Mr.CRC Re:Land of the Free (191 comments)

There is something very wrong with the moral compass of a society that accepts the premise of luring people to commit crimes so they may be prosecuted while we cheer.

People who are on the verge of misdeeds, and where this is known to authorities, should be given warnings to change course lest they commit an act that warrants their removal from society.

Then it should be made a crime to entice people to cross the line.

about two weeks ago
top

Glut of Postdoc Researchers Stirs Quiet Crisis In Science

Mr.CRC Re:More Education is the Key (283 comments)

Yes. Don't you just love government backed loans that can't be discharged in bankruptcy?

about two weeks ago
top

Glut of Postdoc Researchers Stirs Quiet Crisis In Science

Mr.CRC Re:Biology is different (283 comments)

Which DOE lab has tenured staff? Or calls them "faculty" for that matter? The ones here in Livermore have "Technical Staff" and there is no tenure, per se.

Check out this guy's essays on hiring. Really great insights, and just plain fun to read. Plus you can kill an afternoon reading his other stuff too: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/...

about two weeks ago
top

Only Two States Have Rules To Prevent Cheating On Computerized Tests

Mr.CRC Re:I'm sorry... (95 comments)

You are engaging in deliberate intellectual dishonesty.

Libertarians do not reject laws. Someone selling food made from non food-grade oil could simply be charged with the crime of fraud. If actual medical harm was done, then they could also be charged with reckless endangerment, or in the worst case that someone died, manslaughter.

They would also be subject to civil lawsuit(s) for damages. In fact, such an act would warrant severe, most likely business liquidating damages just for the psychological stress and possibility of harm they subjected patrons to.

THAT is respect for private property rights. It starts FIRST with the individual's right to life, liberty, and property. Violate that, and there should be hell to pay.

You can be sure that 2000 pages of regulations aren't necessary when two or three simple lines in the law book are sufficient--provided that law gets enforced impartially no matter the wealth of the offender. One or two business getting liquidated and their owners going away for fraud charges will have the other busineses clamoring to establish a private standards consortium in a hurry, complete with self-motivated compliance and public posting of their independent lab assessments.

That is libertartianism.

about two weeks ago
top

Only Two States Have Rules To Prevent Cheating On Computerized Tests

Mr.CRC Re:Or how about... (95 comments)

Well then, there's no problem caused by top-down control and institutionalization that can't be fixed by more top-down control and institutionalization, eh?

about two weeks ago
top

Ebola Has Made It To the United States

Mr.CRC Jumping for Joy... (475 comments)

are the Rahm Emanuel's of the world. I can't help feeling, ever since this started getting a lot of attention, that entry of Ebola into the USA was a fully planned consequence of our intentional complete inaction.

about three weeks ago
top

When Everything Works Like Your Cell Phone

Mr.CRC Re: Depending on the plan... (175 comments)

Do you even have a fucking brain?

So you want the government to control the performance of your internet connection, and wireless phone? Because they are going to give you a free and open platform, plus yearly doubling bandwidth, right? After all, they have so much incentive to do so.

If you have been on this planet at any time during the past few years, you might have noticed that the first priority that any government has is making sure all your digital communications go through THEIR taps and get or stay unencrypted, so they can record your every move and search for any modicum of an excuse they can find to send a SWAT team over to your house to shoot your dog, blow your infant's face off with a flash grenade, haul you off to prison, and suffer no repercussions from their deadly mistakes.

And you are asking for more of it. Literally ASKING for more of this fucking totalitarian BS.

about three weeks ago
top

Exxon and Russian Operation Discovers Oil Field Larger Than the Gulf of Mexico

Mr.CRC Re:Exxon Wants To Kill The Planet (201 comments)

Most oil company people don't see it that way, or course. I'm not an oil co. employee, but I sympathize much more with their position than yours. Most of the oil people I've encountered were extremely concerned about the well-being of the planet. But even more significant was the fact that they understood that civilization was riding on their backs, and so they were doing a job that must be done lest we descend into literal darkness.

Producing oil is extremely difficult. Most people simply have no idea. They may look at offshore oil platforms (only when they are undergoing a rare catastrophe, on the news), but not even remotely grasp just how expensive and difficult it is, and how many hard working people it takes to supply the consumers of 88Mbbl/day with the oil that they DEMAND.

Some oil folks with high calibre intellects, have gone off to try to help the process of developing viable alternatives to fossil fuels. Others are just doing their jobs. And the executives are just fulfilling their obligations to their shareholders. They don't make particularly high profit margins. The largest companies do make remarkably large profits on an absolute basis, which people like you think should simply be confiscated from them.

Maybe you and your ilk should just go ahead and try it. And then maybe those oil workers should just stop pumping the oil (not that they'd have much choice, as their company would go bankrupt shortly after becoming not profitable. Then we'll see if you can live in the world that results.

The fact of the matter is that WE buy the oil and WE burn it. No oil company forces us to do so. If you really care so much about the planet, stop buying and burning petroleum, or any utility supplied electricity or natural gas for that matter.

It is actually WE who should be made to pay higher taxes for burning the crap and putting the CO2 into the atmosphere. Or royalties that would get paid back to us creating a much higher REAL MARKET PRICE for oil while not significantly increasing our cost or allowing the money to get wasted by bureaucrats--a concept people might wake up to if only they had the ability to climb out of thier conditioning for even a second to envision some other approaches to price the commons that don't involve the currently failing model of government regulation/corruption and artificial, legislatively created "markets."

Until you do that, STFU!

about three weeks ago
top

Utilities Should Worry; Rooftop Solar Could Soon Cut Their Profit

Mr.CRC Re:Really? (517 comments)

What is it with you people who take a situation where a market failure is obviously and explicitly the result of government regulation, and call it "de-regulating ... gone too far?"

I've always known that the biggest obstacle to adopting sustainable energy sources would be government regulations protecting entrenched interests.

about three weeks ago
top

New MRI Studies Show SSRIs Bring Rapid Changes to Brain Function

Mr.CRC Re:Now all they need to do... (138 comments)

But we don't know if that is all there is to it. What does the brain do about it? Nothing? Does the brain just allow its equilibria to be swayed?

There is HUGE evidence that it does not just allow drugs of nearly all types to permanently alter its equilibria, but instead reacts to perturbations by adjusting various feedback effects so as to somewhat cancel the effects of the drug. This is the basis of the development of tolerance. The processes often involves *other* neurotransmitter pathways than the one targeted. The mechanisms can involve processes leading all the way down to the genes. There may even be higher order effects whereby gene expression is itself affected. Despite there being evidence of these phenomenon, there is little understanding.

Then what happens when the drug is removed? Are you worse off than you were before? Anyone who thinks they know is either ignorant or lying.

The truth is that it is extremely complicated.

We know only the tip of the iceberg.

Worse, we market dumbed down summaries about the known information about how they work, leading people to remain mired in overly simplistic (mis)understandings of how mood and mind are related to the physical brain.

about a month ago
top

Putin To Discuss Plans For Disconnecting Russia From the Internet

Mr.CRC Re: (241 comments)

In what country?

In my country, that bastion of freedom known as the USA, they simply take your fucking money and your property whenever they want, just by saying you got it from drugs. It doesn't matter if it's illegal, or contrary to the 5th amendment, because that's just a stupid old piece of paper. And besides, they get to decide what words mean.

about a month ago

Submissions

Mr.CRC hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

Mr.CRC has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?