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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Strictly speaking... (Score 1) 417

Let's be clear here. You cannot infer anything beyond the Nyquist limit. However, if your average resolution limit is 1m years and you are not seeing major changes more rapid that 10m years, there is an extremely low likelihood that there are any processes operating at a lower frequency than that. (I would imagine the samples are somewhat stochastic.)

I do not know what the resolution limits are for this data nor what sort constraints the data provide. My only point is that one must be precise when speaking about these sorts of things. "Rapid changes" and "low resolution" are meaningless terms.

Comment Re:The tech site of my dreams (Score 1) 101

There is a subtle difference between expressing ones views and defending them

I'd argue, that the difference is merely quantitative — as in, how much you are willing to say (or do) in support of your opinion before shrugging and walking away. As opposite to qualitative — as in whether you are willing to say (or do) anything at all.

Defending one's view presupposes that the view has come under attack. Expressing one's view does not.

Comment Re:The tech site of my dreams (Score 1) 101

The only views worth having are those that need no defense. They are well-supported by established evidence.

Would care to defend this view? How about a Periklynian dialog?

Nope. I have no need to. And certainly not in public, on the internet, with a stranger. That sort of activity is, like sex, best done in private and with people I know and trust.

There is a subtle difference between expressing ones views and defending them that you (and others) may have missed.

Comment Re:The tech site of my dreams (Score 3, Insightful) 101

Views that are worth having are worth defending against opposing ones.

Why exactly? They are your views. Why do you need to defend them? Either they hold up on their own, or they don't.

In fact, I would argue that the exact opposite is true. The only views worth having are those that need no defense. They are well-supported by established evidence. All views should be treated with a commensurate level of skepticism based on the evidence available to support them.

Comment Re:This is completely bogus! (Score 1) 52

Given the neighborhood and Iran's intent to make their own nukes, can you blame them?

Uh... you know *why* Iran wants nukes, right? It is precisely because a nearby military rival has them. Israel is right to be scared by that prospect, but they will only have themselves to blame in the end. I don't see things working out well for that area of the world long term.

Comment The Summary Claims Effect is Cause (Score 1) 33

The Aurora Borealis are not "are an electromagnetic phenomena that can adversely affect power grids and communications and navigation systems." They are but an effect of the solar wind, intensified by a solar flare pointed in our direction, interacting with the Earth's magnetic field.

Slashdot Top Deals

On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.

Working...