Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:fallacy (Score 3, Insightful) 148

The problem with that approach is that you will tweak the algorithm until it works in 1996.

In other words, you will incorporate 1996 into the test set.

This is the big problem with almost all climate studies, and the reason why people that understand statistics really hate the current climate "science" as it is done. You really do need to make a prediction, and then test the prediction. If you get it wrong, you cannot re-try against the same data set until it works.

Comment Re:Small dick russians (Score 1) 261

You need to look deeper - it's not that Trump works for Putin; It's that Putin's organization is in competition with Clinton's organization. Putin does not want the competition, even in the US criminal market.

It's just business, it's not personal.

Comment Re:Minefield (Score 1) 547

Agreed - By the way, if anyone is considering not voting: please vote anyway.

Both these people are awful. If they win with only 40% of the popular vote because everyone voted for Fred, they will not be able to claim a mandate for sweeping evil changes. If you vote for a 3rd party, it weakens both bad candidates...

Comment Re:Really? (Score 5, Insightful) 244

Um, no. Niel Armstrong really did fly the lunar lander. He really did run it almost totally out of fuel, because he had to avoid a huge rock. If he hadn't done that, the vehicle would have gone splat.

By the way, the computer was completely spazzing out during the landing and was not giving good data. Fortunately it was written in a way that kept the important stuff going regardless.


Comment Re:Wherever data is collected, it is abused (Score 1) 185

I used to think that as well, but in an Economics study I learned some unfortunate downside to legal prostitution. Unfortunately it seems that if prostitution is legalized, illegal forced prostitution increases. That sucks.

I'm not sure if the solution on balance should be to make prostitution illegal or just increase the resources expended against forced prostitution, but there is a downside I at least didn't know about earlier.

Comment Re:it's pretty simple (Score 1) 178

I'll give you a hint: I was disabled, and literally did not have enough money for food. I went to the government for help. I was rejected, while other people (of a more politically favored class) that were not disabled at all were given money.

Eventually, I found a job were I could work somewhat. I then had to pay taxes to support those favored by the government, when I could barely afford rent.

You trust the government, because you have never been abused by it. You're probably also pretty good at getting others to give you what you want by talking.

I sucked at that, though I got better. The government, and unions, help a certain class of people by harming everyone else.

To me, you union/government guys guys are simply either inexperienced or insane. The path you chose has never worked. It has been proven mathematically impossible via simple, well understood economics. Yet you persist in believing that if only we gave all the power to "person X", whether a union boss, a President, or a scientist, everything would be better.

Anything that does not increase production hurts the majority, and only benefits a more powerful minority.

Comment Re:it's pretty simple (Score 0) 178

1) The world does not owe you a living

2) If someone is willing to do your job as well as you for less money than you, they should have the job.

If the world followed these simple rules, people would quickly shuffle to the job where they produce the most benefit for society. Society as a whole would be better off, including the displaced workers once they find their niche.

When you have protectionism, such as unions, by definition you are stealing jobs from someone that needs it more. The whole argument about pay going up or down is a red herring; if pay decreased globally, then prices would also decrease globally. If pay rises, prices rise in step. The only thing that can make society better off as a whole is increased efficiency and increased production. Anything else is just theft from those weaker than you.

Comment Re:40cm? (Score 1) 225

What you are missing is that the collision is happening at extreme hypersonic speeds. That means that when the first atoms to collide hit, they literally cannot get out of the way of the next line of atoms. (The speed of sound is basically the fastest the atoms can move to get out of the way.) So that matter hits and is stopped, and is unable to get out of the way of the rest, etc, etc. So you end up with everything smashed to incredible pressures (higher than the inside of the sun) which causes incredible heat (vaporizing an approximately equal amount of impactor and impactee). Then that cloud of super-heated gas interacts with the stuff around it for a very short time.

Comment Re:Nope, no wealth inequality here (Score 2) 177

No, the real problem with socialism is not the harm it does to the economy due to the direct action of taking money from savers and giving it to spenders. That is bad enough, but the true problem is that those transfers due terrible things to the human psyche:

If you change the reward structure of society and make it random, moral behavior stops. If you take from workers and give to non-workers, not only do people stop working they also start stealing, raping, and killing at higher rates.

Socialism is the death knell of human societies.

On a side note, the intuition that transferring money from the rich (or savers) to the poor (or spenders) helps the spenders is false. It seems true because if you personally steal money from someone, it does make you better off. But the fact is that if everyone like you stole a million dollars from the Fed, the number of pizzas you could buy would not change. The number of pizzas being created per year cannot fluctuate that easily, but the price can. So when you take money from savers and give it to spenders two things happen:

1) There is inflation of the prices of things the spenders like to buy in order to soak up the money (you haven't increased supply, you haven't changed demand, so the only thing that can change is the price)
2) There are fewer savers, at the very least because you have confiscated some savings. This means fewer jobs available.

So, socialism is not good for anyone, even those it supposedly helps!

Comment Re:Does anybody really doubt it (Score 4, Insightful) 706

A bungled robbery NEVER results in a double tap to the back.

In a bungled robbery, the gun goes off while the victim and perp face each other most often, and there is not a second shot to confirm death. That's the whole point, the perp panics and forgets to take the stuff - he doesn't calmly put another round through the heart.

Comment Re:Beautiful by the numbers launch / deploy / land (Score 1) 103

The space shuttle sonic booms were lethal, but only in a contained area over the ocean. That's why they had to clear that area of ships before launch.

The issue is that the shuttle (like most rockets) didn't fly straight up, it went in a curve. That creates a focus point for the shockwave, which makes it MUCH bigger.

Comment Re:A bit much for parody? (Score 3, Interesting) 565

You are, of course, completely wrong in every respect.

Gun control laws were put in place to take guns away from black people. Democrats didn't want the blacks to be able to defend themselves when they had lynching parties. Republicans disagreed. (

If you really believe that cops are "out to get" African American people (most cops were I am seem to be African American themselves?), black people having guns is even more important. Cops are a lot more respectful when the suspects and witnesses might be armed but are behaving themselves...

Slashdot Top Deals

grep me no patterns and I'll tell you no lines.