Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance (Score 1) 380

by 0xC2 (#31123442) Attached to: Brain Surgery Linked To Sensation of Spirituality

If you press your closed eye with your finger and see a light, you haven't explained light. That requires physics. Or if you stimulate the correct part of your brain and experience a salty taste in your mouth, you haven't explained salt. That requires chemistry. So how can you say:

But it does explain spirituality. It's an attempt to accurately define what spirituality is.

These experiments do little or nothing to explain the object of our senses. They do however explain the biology which allows us to experience them.

Comment: Read david Bohm (Score 1) 365

by 0xC2 (#31043692) Attached to: Physicists Discover How To Teleport Energy

David Bohm's theory of the implicate order is (for me) the most satisfying explanation of the apparent absurdity in quantum entanglement.

Comment: Re:Missing the point (Score 1) 336

by 0xC2 (#29614175) Attached to: Initial Reviews of Google Wave; Neat, but Noisy

Wave is literally a Wiki-IM hybrid.

The valuable part of a wiki IMHO, is that the consensus, or at least the representative views, generally float to the top. All the history is there for the curious, but it's mostly archival. If waves allow consensus, conclusions, structure, and action items to "float to the top", and typos, mis-statements, and rejected viewpoints to sink, then I see much hope in Google Wave. I realize some kind of editing, possibly with the aid of plugins, is required to achieve this goal, but the point is how easily the final "document" can be extracted from the wave process.

Comment: Wave is the Anti-Wiki (Score 1) 336

by 0xC2 (#29613985) Attached to: Initial Reviews of Google Wave; Neat, but Noisy

I was hoping that Google Wave would be more like a super-wiki than a multi-media chat room. Wiki's allow anyone to contribute their knowledge in a structured, peer-reviewed way that (generally) promotes structure (including proper spelling and grammar) and, if not consensus, at least a fair representation of predominant viewpoints. I get the feeling that wiki contributions are fully formed thought structures. I like wikis.

Chat rooms encourage fast-typing and snappy comebacks. I don't think that careful consideration is the point of chat. So although I see the real-time collaborative potential, I am not a fan. What I like about email is that I can answer it in my own time, the sender doesn't usually expect an immediate reply.

Maybe I don't get it. But then again I don't really get twitter either.

Comment: Spooky action at a distance (Score 1) 550

by 0xC2 (#25986521) Attached to: Visual Hallucinations Are a Normal Grief Reaction

My father is a WWII vet who raised a family of 10 on a modest salary by being hard-nosed, no-nonsense, practical realist. So one day (when I was a kid), he's blowing his top because SOMEONE was messing in his dresser drawer! His box of cards was opened, and a prayer card that he had saved since he was a kid was standing up on top. The prayer card was from a wake for a childhood friend who had killed himself as a kid. My father kept in touch with the family through the annual Christmas card exchange. Nobody fessed up to rifleing through his drawer (a capital offense). Then later that same evening he gets a call from the family with the bad news that the childhood friend's father (same name) had passed the night before. Please explain that.