Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Comment I finally had my third cup of Kool-Aid (Score 1) 307

by Kubla Kahhhn! (#48932519) Attached to: The iPad Is 5 Years Old This Week, But You Still Don't Need One
I got hooked on Macs and iPhones a while ago. I was never an iPad guy, but when the Air came around, it had the specs to appeal to me. I still resisted, then when the Air 2 came out, I had to treat myself. I love the fuck out of that thing. It's light and fast and lasts for ages and is glorious to look at. I actually have a Logitech bluetooth keyboard cover and there's very little I can't do with it, in terms of leisure and productivity. I'm hooked. Well played, Apple, well played.

Comment Re:Yes. (Score 1) 227

by Kubla Kahhhn! (#48812991) Attached to: Lawrence Krauss On Scientists As Celebrities: Good For Science?

Theories aside, you have a solid point.

Science celebrities (DeGrasse-Tyson, Sagan, etc) would be awesome proponents of science... if they would stop yapping politics. Seriously, scientific discovery and history are wonderful things. Enticing folks into wanting to know more about our world and universe is an awesome thing.

But... when you have some scientist-turned-celebrity yammering on and on and on about some purely political viewpoint (and worse, misrepresenting opposing ones and falling victim to even the most basic of logical fallacies), then it sucks.

A good example of a science celeb? Dr. Michio Kaku. Dude sticks to science for the most part, and doesn't try to recruit political acolytes to gain points, controversy, or notoriety.

But they don't exist in a vacuum. Politicians and religious leaders are shouting all this jargon, and both journalists and pseudo-journalists ask them questions about it, and someone has to respond to it. As the press has recently caught on about, the creationist movement cleverly gamed the system so that their pseudo-scientific views were on a par with mainstream scientific views-- "teach the controversy". There really isn't a controversy. If scientists somehow all refused to respond, then the public would be even more misled, I would think.

Submission + - WSJ refused to publish Lawrence Krauss' response to "Science Proves Religion".

Submitted by Kubla Kahhhn!
Kubla Kahhhn! writes: Recently, the WSJ posted a controversial piece "Science Increasingly Makes a Case for God", written by non-scientist and darling of the apologist crowd, Eric Metaxas. Noted astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss wrote a simple and clear retort in a letter to the editor, which the WSJ declined to publish. Is it an example of the kind of "fair and balanced reporting" we can expect, now that Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch?

Comment Not surprised, especially vs TV (Score 1) 400

by Kubla Kahhhn! (#48725869) Attached to: Box Office 2014: Moviegoing Hits Two-Decade Low
Right now TV is arguably in its greatest era, and there has been a glut of really mediocre films, so I'm not at all surprised. You can go to the theaters and pay a fortune for movies that can't crack 7.5 on IMDB, or you can sit at home with your gigantic TV screen and watch Walking Dead, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Hannibal, True Detective, Game of Thrones, and that's a fraction of what's available at home in the US, and I haven't even hinted at British and European television. Plus, if you get started on any TV show and it's not grabbing you, you can just switch to something else. The movie industry really has to step up its game.

Comment Re:I don't get it. (Score 1) 541

by Kubla Kahhhn! (#47671251) Attached to: Geneticists Decry Book On Race and Evolution
But all the speculations in this thread, over race and genetics, are not addressing the claims in the book. This is a separate discussion. You're all presuming the author was merely stating unpleasant truths. The only question relevant to this book is: was the author quote-mining to bolster a racist agenda, or not?

Slashdot Top Deals

8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss

Close