Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Oh, really? (Score 4, Informative) 200

I've had my AMOLED phone for 3 years now, using it aggressively for several hours a day, and no visible sign of wear as of yet. If you place it right next to a spanking-new phone and squint your eyes, you can make out the slightest amount of color tint. But so what? LCD backlights degrade too.

I wouldn't recommend an OLED screen for something like a desktop computer where it's on 24 hours a day every day. But for a phone, it's perfect.

Comment Re:If it's really a policy (Score 1) 292

"I don't like it" is not the same as "It's not a good idea." To say that it's not a good idea, you have to explain why it's not a good idea. I see no hint of any reasonable explanation of that sort here. He's citing "free speech grounds" which are irrelevant, as I said. That's the point of his I'm addressing.

Comment Re:If it's really a policy (Score 2) 292

That's another thing about Dawkins that I find kind of unsettling and in conflict with his atheist message. He says that he likes the CofE because it's part of tradition and history, and is a tolerant establishment. That's all well and good. I prefer the CofE to, say, Catholicism or Southern Baptism, for precisely the same reason. But I think you should apply that kind of reasoning consistently. He's said that “I don’t buy the feeling that because we have Christian faith schools we therefore have to have Buddhist and Muslim and Hindu faith schools as well.” My question is: Why not? There are Buddhist and Muslim and Hindu schools of thought that are just as tolerant as the CofE is, and if one refuses to acknowledge that, one simply professes their ignorance. There are many temples and mosques and synagogues you can go in without being a person of that faith, and people will welcome you and talk to you and be nice to you and so on. Plus all of those religions are important to history - some directly to European history, others part of our shared human history. So why single out Anglicanism?

More and more people are becoming atheist every day because religions have outdated, nonsense beliefs and have outlived their useful purpose. So there's really no reason to defend one or another.

Comment Re:he should know better (Score 1) 292

Exactly. Free speech means you can't face legal consequences for what you say. That was a revolutionary concept in its time, as most governments throughout history made it a major offense - often punishable by death or extreme torture - to criticize the government in any way. The idea that you could live under a government and face no consequences whatsoever for even the harshest words against that government was a mind-blowing concept. Thankfully, nowadays its a routine and expected concept, so we aren't blown away daily for just how amazing it is to have that freedom. But free speech never meant that everyone gets a fair share of everyone else's time and money to spread their ideas. That's not only NOT what free speech is, it's also against capitalism and individualism.

Comment Re:If it's really a policy (Score 1) 292

Exactly. I'm pro-free-speech and against censorship of ideas, even if they're crazy and upsetting ideas. But you are allowed to not run ads in a private venue. That is the flip-side of free speech that people who don't really believe in free speech fail to understand. You are free to offend people, and they are free to choose not to listen to you, or to give you a platform for your ideas. You are free to camp out in front of the cinema and preach if you want. That's absolutely your right. But you can't insist that the cinema spend their time and money spreading your idea. That is not your right.

So it's curious why -- out of all the things that Dawkins could have been upset by -- he chooses to be upset by a cinema not displaying an ad for an Anglican Church. Would Dawkins be as upset as he is if it were an ad for a Jewish organization, or a Hindu one... or a Muslim one? I'm going to go out on a limb and say no.

Maybe Dawkins is the one who is being biased here.

Comment Re:Litigious Much (Score 0) 802

> You do realize that lots of religious schools, even in Texas, teach evolution even with respect to humans, teach the big bang theory

How kind of them to teach kids actual facts and provide them with a useful education instead of their religious dogma that is backed by zero evidence. A bunch of selfless humanitarians, that bunch!

> teach that the discoveries of science are not in conflict with religion, that science and religion search for answers in orthogonal fields.

And just when I was beginning to praise them...

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 424

Let's put it this way. In the scale of the Galaxy, someone like Hitler would have just been one local warlord out of millions, barely significant to anyone not living on that particular planet, and soon forgotten. In the Foundation, Hari Seldon and the Mule are able to influence the course of history through what is essentially magic (psychohistory is not a real thing, and the Mule was telepathic). With sufficient magic you can of course have an impact on any scale you want. Star Wars has the Force. You need magic to make a story like that believable.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 424

This always seemed kind of weird to me too. This is a story that supposedly takes place on a Grand Galactic Scale, with millions of planets, trillions of sentient beings, wars thousands of light years across, and then something like five main characters determine the fate of everyone and everything.

And R2D2 always seems to find himself everywhere there is action.

Comment Re:Before a human walks on Mars... (Score 3, Informative) 285

The moon wasn't created by an asteroid impact. It was created by a planet-planet impact (actually Earth and Theia weren't strictly planets because neither had cleared their orbits back then, but they definitely weren't asteroids). There simply aren't any asteroids large enough to seriously damage human life that will impact us in the next million years at least. A million years is a really long time.

95% of potentially hazardous asteroids have been mapped and as we continue to map more of them we'll have detailed information about their trajectories and we'll be able to know centuries in advance if they are going to hit us.

And it's hard to imagine a scenario where even an asteroid as big as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs would _totally_ destroy human life. Shrews and crocodiles survived it. We're at least as smart as good at survival as crocodiles, I'd think.

The idea that we need to 'urgently get off this rock' to 'save the species' from 'asteroid impact' is pure sci fi fantasy, nothing more. It's embarrassing that people as 'smart' as, say, Elon Musk would parrot that line.

> The sun going nova, as all suns do.

The sun isn't going to 'go nova.' Novas require binary star systems which are solar system is not. Nor is it going to go supernova - it doesn't have enough mass.

The sun will expand into a red giant and that will presumably destroy life on Earth, but that's going to take five billion years. Do you understand how long that is? As far as we are concerned, for all practical purposes five billion years is an infinite amount of time.

So I ask you yet again: What extinction level event?

Unix is the worst operating system; except for all others. -- Berry Kercheval