"Constructive criticism" is a term invented to deflect actual criticism by denying it's validity. It's a touchy-feely term that allows those being criticized to ignore actual criticism. It's bullshit I don't buy into.
Here's a thought - instead of droning on about how you think they've done it wrong, try giving your idea of how to do it right.
There's sufficient information in my critique to allow anyone with an IQ above room temperature to derive the flaws and see what corrective action is required. No further action on my part is required.
it's not like that's some special power that only you possess; opinions are like assholes - everybody's got one, and most of them smell like shit. Few people have the intellect/creativity/hojos/etc to actually do something about it other than bitch.
Just because you're ignorant, doesn't mean other people are. That you can't recognize the difference between a valid critique and mere "bitching" is your own failure.
Point being, pissing and moaning about the shortcomings of others does nothing to better the situation, so why engage in such pointless negativity, other than to hear the sound of your own voice?
This from you? You really are a piece of work indeed. You honestly think I that only to hear the sound of my own voice? You're even more ignorant than I believed.
You're pissing into the wind I'm afraid - most Slashdotters believe they have a right to anything they want, anytime they want, at the price they want to pay. That other people have rights is something they have utterly no comprehension of.
*Wow* Just when I think the pirates can't come up with an even more tortured and logic free "reason" justifying themselves - they manage to top themselves yet again.
"I can't be bothered to go to the theater and will feel left out if I can't talk about the movie - so it's ok to pirate it" Seriously? I mean, I can almost buy some of the arguments about regional codes, or not being released in new formats... but pirating because your self esteem will be damaged and you want to keep up with the crowd?
Yep, the only problem with Kickstarter right now seems to be that it's a little to popular. After the Doublefine Adventure success a lot of other game projects jumped on the train and a lot of them are already struggling to make it to their goal, as its simply to hard to get much publicity when there are so projects.
I don't think it's that there are too many projects, it's just that publicity is fraught with difficulty - period. If you're famous, it's easy to get ink. If you're not, it's not.
That's some lovely stereotyping you've built your strawmen out of - and a lovely illustration of how widespread the type of discourse that Heartland is indulging in really is.
We have completely and almost totally destroyed our consumer products manufacturing, true.
And much of that was shooting ourselves in the foot by patronizing whichever big box (Target, Wal-Mart/Sam's, and Costco being the biggies) has the lowest prices. (Nor is this a new thing either, the race to the bottom by the discount chains got it's start back in the early years of the 20th century.)
This is very important to cruisers... more than 200 miles away you can technically tell all authorities other than your flag nation to F-off
This is mostly true, and can bite them in the butt.
If they intend to operate out of US ports, and provide anything that even looks remotely like passenger service (I.E. hosting staff for their clients) then they can't exit and re-enter the United States without visiting a "distant foreign port". Back in the day when there was tons of coastwise passenger transport, this protected US firms from foreign competition. Today it mostly means that Alaska cruises have to port at Victoria and Maratimes/East Coast cruises usually in Halifax. For Blueseed this is going to mean visiting Mexico between port visits to the US. (And they *will* either have to visit the US or sail across the Pacific Ocean for servicing - a ship can't stay at sea forever.)
Also, pretty much every nation subscribes to SOLAS and even the flag-of-convenience nations have safety requirements. Not to mention, that if they ever port, they'll be subject to safety inspections by the Coast Guard of the nation they're porting in. These are non-trivial to comply with and are deadly serious - the can be at a minimum refused entry, or at worst impounded for failing to comply. On top of these inspections, if they hope to carry insurance, the ship will have to regularly be inspected and certified on a regular basis by a legitimate classification society...
These "tech Love Boat" companies all sound to me to have based their plans on urban legends about how the law of the sea and related conventions work, and not on any real world legal and business research.
These are so badly done... Opaque (in meaning) icons, no hover text on the examples, and many of the icons (especially on the 'negative' side) represent user opinions rather than descriptive statements of fact that reflect real life TOS's. (And also ignorant of the non-binary nature of at least one option.)
One could definitely argue that while "fly this plane into extremely dangerous enemy territory and blow them up, we'll give you all the support we can but there's still pretty good odds you won't make it back" is a lawful order, "fly this plane on a routine practice mission over our own, undisputed territory, that's likely to kill you for no reason" is not.
No, one could not make such an argument. In the first place, it's nowhere near "likely" to kill you. In the second place, any time you take to the air there's a change you could be killed.
Multiple conflicts throughout history have shown what local gurrila fighter can do against a "proper military"
Yeah, it's shown that sometimes the guerrillas win (but not reliably), and that sometimes the guerrilla's force a draw - and a considerable percentage of the time they're used to wipe the floor by the "proper" military. (That is if you actually study history, rather than go by urban legends.) Generally, where the guerrillas end up on top, there's problems of some kind within the "proper" military, or there is considerable outside support or aid for the guerrillas, or the guerrillas are actually more-or-less regulars in disguise.
now imagine what one of the best armed civilian populations could do
Said population will probably accomplish about zip point shit. Winning a war isn't about who has a lot of guns - especially in the face of a modern army. It's about organization, communications, logistics, training, strategy and tactics... all those things the Soldier-of-Fortune wannabees lack completely.
This. I have a couple of camera's that are now useless for the same reason - I can't find replacements for their custom batteries anymore.
The problem is less one of "user replaceable batteries" than it is of "unique batteries". OTOH, with battery technology evolving as fast as it is... I'm not sure there's a clear fix for the problem.
A reduction drive is not THAT hard to engineer reliably, especially if it's required to be overhauled every 10000 hours of use.
The problem isn't the basic engineering - it's all the certifications for aviation use. While not quite up there with the medical equipment or being flown to the ISS, getting certified for aviation use is pretty stringent.
The point of the article was that the difficult part for a country aspiring to create a nuclear arsenal is accumulating the proper uranium or plutonium.
In other words, they rediscovered something that any professional or serious amateur in the field has known for decades.
The other article examined whether using depleted uranium for ammunition had lasting effects because of radioactivity. If I recall correctly, the radioactive aspect was not a concern. However, uranium can be poisonous without any consideration of its (limited) radioactivity. Since DU rounds piercing armor can cause the outer shell of them to vaporize, this could be a problem.
In other words, they (again) rediscovered what everyone else already knew.
The Bulletin's conclusion was not obvious.
Not to you maybe. That doesn't mean it wasn't obvious and well known to everyone else.
But, when you're not cherry picking articles that say more about you than the Bulletin, and when you're actually knowledgeable about the field, you'll find the OP is correct. Just because they're scientists doesn't mean they aren't biased.
Why be amused? This is exactly what Slashdot has been advocating all these years - "don't go proprietary, don't be a slave to the man, roll your own, go F/OSS".
You can easily look at a problem which is based on known physics, do some calculations and come up with the answer. If the answer is "it won't work", you can oppose the idiots pushing for it for their own monetary benefit with a clear conscience.
Given the large number of unknowns in the calculations... no, you can't "easily" reach unassailable conclusions.
It does not mean that you are biased. Instead, you are based on the facts.
That makes the assumption that all the facts are known and undisputed. This is rarely true, and emphatically is not true in this case. Instead, such calculations are based on assumptions*, and such assumptions are susceptible to bias.
On the other hand, in a country which is opposed to Science as strongly as USA, I would not be surprised to see that such a stand would be viewed as 'biased elitist shit'.
When someone pronounces the outcome of a theoretical study as unassailable because it was "done by scientists", and pronounces those who don't believe as he does to be "idiots" - that someone shouldn't be accusing others of bias, when he so plainly and proudly reveals his own. (As well as his ignorance.)
* One their assumptions back in the 80's was that not only would computers never grow powerful enough to run the battle management code, but that even if they did there was no possible data link that could carry the required data. Yet, computers more powerful than what they said could never be, and network links faster than they said could never be, can be bought off the shelf at your local electronics retailer.
Perhaps the American Physical Society is strongly opposed to missile defense because they, being physicists who are pretty good at understanding the physics involved, realize that it is a bad idea?
Mayne, maybe not. Maybe they're strongly opposed on other grounds.
I remember that the American Physical Society (the professional organization of physicists) studied various boost-phase missile defense schemes years ago. They found that the various options, including air-borne lasers, weren't likely to be very useful in realistic scenarios (even under otherwise optimistic assumptions).
The American Physical Society has been strongly opposed to missile defense going all the way to the SDI back in the 80's. Though they present themselves otherwise, they are not an unbiased source.
The Titanic was probably the first such sinking where there would have been a good chance of everyone surviving if they carried enough life boats. And people learned from that.
Precisely this.
Prior to Titanic the general idea was that a ship should "be her own lifeboat", because taking to the lifeboats was like riding an ejection seat - attempting suicide to avoid certain death. Professional mariners and sailors simply didn't trust lifeboats on the open ocean, because the chances of survival were so slim.
It took the loss of Titanic for people to realize the three different developments had occurred and completely changed the situation: First, the development of radio so you could call for help. Second, there was now sufficient shipping on most of the world's trade routes that there would be somebody close enough to help. Third, steam power was now the order of the day which meant that ships were independent of the wind and could actually respond to the call in a timely fashion.
Slashdot Mirror
"Constructive criticism" is a term invented to deflect actual criticism by denying it's validity. It's a touchy-feely term that allows those being criticized to ignore actual criticism. It's bullshit I don't buy into.
There's sufficient information in my critique to allow anyone with an IQ above room temperature to derive the flaws and see what corrective action is required. No further action on my part is required.
Just because you're ignorant, doesn't mean other people are. That you can't recognize the difference between a valid critique and mere "bitching" is your own failure.
This from you? You really are a piece of work indeed. You honestly think I that only to hear the sound of my own voice? You're even more ignorant than I believed.
And? That doesn't make him a specialist in maritime or admiralty law.
You're pissing into the wind I'm afraid - most Slashdotters believe they have a right to anything they want, anytime they want, at the price they want to pay. That other people have rights is something they have utterly no comprehension of.
*Wow* Just when I think the pirates can't come up with an even more tortured and logic free "reason" justifying themselves - they manage to top themselves yet again.
"I can't be bothered to go to the theater and will feel left out if I can't talk about the movie - so it's ok to pirate it" Seriously? I mean, I can almost buy some of the arguments about regional codes, or not being released in new formats... but pirating because your self esteem will be damaged and you want to keep up with the crowd?
That I can't do better doesn't mean I can't recognize when they're done badly.
I don't think it's that there are too many projects, it's just that publicity is fraught with difficulty - period. If you're famous, it's easy to get ink. If you're not, it's not.
That's some lovely stereotyping you've built your strawmen out of - and a lovely illustration of how widespread the type of discourse that Heartland is indulging in really is.
And much of that was shooting ourselves in the foot by patronizing whichever big box (Target, Wal-Mart/Sam's, and Costco being the biggies) has the lowest prices. (Nor is this a new thing either, the race to the bottom by the discount chains got it's start back in the early years of the 20th century.)
This is mostly true, and can bite them in the butt.
If they intend to operate out of US ports, and provide anything that even looks remotely like passenger service (I.E. hosting staff for their clients) then they can't exit and re-enter the United States without visiting a "distant foreign port". Back in the day when there was tons of coastwise passenger transport, this protected US firms from foreign competition. Today it mostly means that Alaska cruises have to port at Victoria and Maratimes/East Coast cruises usually in Halifax. For Blueseed this is going to mean visiting Mexico between port visits to the US. (And they *will* either have to visit the US or sail across the Pacific Ocean for servicing - a ship can't stay at sea forever.)
Also, pretty much every nation subscribes to SOLAS and even the flag-of-convenience nations have safety requirements. Not to mention, that if they ever port, they'll be subject to safety inspections by the Coast Guard of the nation they're porting in. These are non-trivial to comply with and are deadly serious - the can be at a minimum refused entry, or at worst impounded for failing to comply. On top of these inspections, if they hope to carry insurance, the ship will have to regularly be inspected and certified on a regular basis by a legitimate classification society...
These "tech Love Boat" companies all sound to me to have based their plans on urban legends about how the law of the sea and related conventions work, and not on any real world legal and business research.
These are so badly done... Opaque (in meaning) icons, no hover text on the examples, and many of the icons (especially on the 'negative' side) represent user opinions rather than descriptive statements of fact that reflect real life TOS's. (And also ignorant of the non-binary nature of at least one option.)
No, one could not make such an argument. In the first place, it's nowhere near "likely" to kill you. In the second place, any time you take to the air there's a change you could be killed.
Yeah, it's shown that sometimes the guerrillas win (but not reliably), and that sometimes the guerrilla's force a draw - and a considerable percentage of the time they're used to wipe the floor by the "proper" military. (That is if you actually study history, rather than go by urban legends.) Generally, where the guerrillas end up on top, there's problems of some kind within the "proper" military, or there is considerable outside support or aid for the guerrillas, or the guerrillas are actually more-or-less regulars in disguise.
Said population will probably accomplish about zip point shit. Winning a war isn't about who has a lot of guns - especially in the face of a modern army. It's about organization, communications, logistics, training, strategy and tactics... all those things the Soldier-of-Fortune wannabees lack completely.
Let me see if I have this right - they have your vote because they admit they can't be bothered to keep up to date on the issues?
Oh, the Pirate Party is blowing hot air too - you just refuse to realize it.
One of the most insightful posts on Facebook ever - and there's damn few of them given Slashdot's rabid antipathy towards Facebook.
This. I have a couple of camera's that are now useless for the same reason - I can't find replacements for their custom batteries anymore.
The problem is less one of "user replaceable batteries" than it is of "unique batteries". OTOH, with battery technology evolving as fast as it is... I'm not sure there's a clear fix for the problem.
No, it wasn't. On opening day it closed at 100.35, and except for two days two weeks after their IPO... it's never been below that.
The problem isn't the basic engineering - it's all the certifications for aviation use. While not quite up there with the medical equipment or being flown to the ISS, getting certified for aviation use is pretty stringent.
In other words, they rediscovered something that any professional or serious amateur in the field has known for decades.
In other words, they (again) rediscovered what everyone else already knew.
Not to you maybe. That doesn't mean it wasn't obvious and well known to everyone else.
But, when you're not cherry picking articles that say more about you than the Bulletin, and when you're actually knowledgeable about the field, you'll find the OP is correct. Just because they're scientists doesn't mean they aren't biased.
Why be amused? This is exactly what Slashdot has been advocating all these years - "don't go proprietary, don't be a slave to the man, roll your own, go F/OSS".
Given the large number of unknowns in the calculations... no, you can't "easily" reach unassailable conclusions.
That makes the assumption that all the facts are known and undisputed. This is rarely true, and emphatically is not true in this case. Instead, such calculations are based on assumptions*, and such assumptions are susceptible to bias.
When someone pronounces the outcome of a theoretical study as unassailable because it was "done by scientists", and pronounces those who don't believe as he does to be "idiots" - that someone shouldn't be accusing others of bias, when he so plainly and proudly reveals his own. (As well as his ignorance.)
* One their assumptions back in the 80's was that not only would computers never grow powerful enough to run the battle management code, but that even if they did there was no possible data link that could carry the required data. Yet, computers more powerful than what they said could never be, and network links faster than they said could never be, can be bought off the shelf at your local electronics retailer.
Mayne, maybe not. Maybe they're strongly opposed on other grounds.
That doesn't stop them from being political.
Your bias is *very* obvious.
The American Physical Society has been strongly opposed to missile defense going all the way to the SDI back in the 80's. Though they present themselves otherwise, they are not an unbiased source.
Precisely this.
Prior to Titanic the general idea was that a ship should "be her own lifeboat", because taking to the lifeboats was like riding an ejection seat - attempting suicide to avoid certain death. Professional mariners and sailors simply didn't trust lifeboats on the open ocean, because the chances of survival were so slim.
It took the loss of Titanic for people to realize the three different developments had occurred and completely changed the situation: First, the development of radio so you could call for help. Second, there was now sufficient shipping on most of the world's trade routes that there would be somebody close enough to help. Third, steam power was now the order of the day which meant that ships were independent of the wind and could actually respond to the call in a timely fashion.
What hold does the makers of the Rasberry Pi have over Slashdot editors? Blackmail pictures from the last office party?