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


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:while video is great it is biased (Score 1) 32 32

Whether we knew/know about an asteroid strike doesn't change whether the strike will occur. As such, the actual likelihood of an asteroid hit is the same, either way. What has changed is our knowledge that it is going to occur.

Put differently, there are a finite number of asteroids in the solar system. If one othem is on a trajectory that will eventually impact the earth, the likelihood of an earth impact is unchanged whether we know it or not. Likewise, if none of them are on a trajectory to impact earth, the likelihood of an earth impact is unchanged whether we know it or not.

At this point in time, there are only two options - either the earth will be hit or it will never be hit. The more we know about the asteroids and their trajectories does not change those results (unless by knowing, we have a means to divert the collision, which currently, we can't).

Comment: Re:while video is great it is biased (Score 1) 32 32 yes, we know 1% of asteroids, but still - the danger now for a person to be killed by asteroid is more than 100 times less, than it was two decades ago

Actually, the danger to a person being killed by an asteroid is not changed. That won't happen until some technology is developed to deal with them. But, at least we would know the end is coming.

Comment: Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1065 1065

Civil unions would have been one option. Most of the rest of the world went that route. However, that only solves the issue of equal protection under the law. There were/are other agendas involved in this decision, which is why there is all of the talk about love and family and the two becoming greater than the whole.

As Justice Roberts stated in his dissenting opinion, it's fine to celebrate this decision, just don't celebrate the constitution for it, as the decision, as written has nothing to do with the constitution. (paraphrased)

Comment: Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 2) 1065 1065

Hardly, since it just upheld equal rights for all. That gay couples can enter into a legal contract, i.e, marriage. Until now they were denied that simply because they wanted to marry the same sex. That was clearly unconstitutional.

Then the court should have simply stated that marriage, in the eyes of the law is a legal contract that same sex couples were denied from entering into. This is a violation of the 14th amendment.

But they didn't. Instead the SCOTUS said that there is a new right called dignity and that marriage is about love and mutual respect and support of the family, yada, yadad. While I do not necessarily disagree with those sentiments, love et al is not what the court was asked to address as it is not protected under the 14th amendment.

My point being, the court, in its majority opinion, should have dealt with matters of law, not sociology.

Comment: Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1065 1065

And why should they discriminate against me being single? Granting protection to married couples only makes sense if those protections make it easier for procreation. Same-sex couples cannot procreate, so they should be granted no protections. If same-sex couples are being given those protections, I should be legally allowed to marry myself and have them too.

There are no benefits for ones ability to procreate -- same sex, different sex or single. There are benefits for the results of procreating and raising a child, whether biologically or through adoption.
Same sex couples already have access to those protections, as do single people. (You don't have to be married to get the child tax credit, you just have to have a child).

With regards to marrying yourself, the whole issue is that marriage brings a number of rights to the spouse by law without having one spouse specifically grant them to the other. Marrying yourself to get these rights doesn't make sense, as you already have them.

Comment: Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1065 1065

From the decision:

"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right." - Justice Kennedy

You make my point. There is no constitutional right to dignity under the law. There is a constitutional right to equal protection. I wonder, if the Boston Bomper can now appeal his case based on this new constitutional right of dignity?

Comment: Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1065 1065

The fact that I got modded down for flamebait just reinforces the notion that the issue of same-sex marriage is about something other than equal protection under the law. That is fine, but the reality is the court was supposed to address equal protection under the law, not the changing morals of society as it relates to marriage.

For the record, I'm not opposed to same sex-sex marriage. I just think the SCOTUS should stick to its intended purpose versus being a vehicle for social change. Ironically, many states already made the argument for them on how the 14th amendment was being violated. Not one of them included concepts of the expression of love (probably, because no state laws on marriage require the expression of love as a requirement). SCOTUS however has now made that part of the definition of marriage.

The problem is that if SCOTUS can define marriage one way, then in the future, it can define it a different way, depending on how public opinion changes. If they had relied on the 14th amendment argument, the burden of changing the definition would be on those wanting to change it and showing it wasn't a violation. But, then, that is not what the SCOTUS did.

Comment: Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 3, Interesting) 1065 1065

And some may consider it judicial correction for failing to follow the legislative action taken on July 9, 1868.

Or, some may consider it judicial activism since the majority opinion talks about marriage being about love and commitment, and two people becoming more than they were before, etc. To many, regardless of one's views or same-sex marriage, it seems that the majority opinion went beyond equal protection under the law.

Comment: Re:root problem (Score 1) 136 136

I thought so too. I was under the impression that Mars has no spinning iron core anymore, so terraforming is all but impossible since there isn't a strong enough magnetic field to prevent the solar winds from stripping away any potential atmosphere beyond what is currently there. What am I missing here?

People who approve funding for DARPA (and others) aren't usually interested in the scientific reality, just the hype.

Comment: Re:More bad science journalism (Score 1) 29 29

This just in: the difference between a just formed, new planet and a planet that got hot stellar matter from its central sol is much smaller than the difference between a newly formed planet and one that circles around the quiet central star for some billions of years.

And thus it is a rejuvenation, as the planet gets more similar to its primordal state than before.

Does the so called rejuvenated planet behave similar to the new planet - plate tectonics, chemistry, atmosphere, etc? Seems that to rejuvenate a planet would require more than just blasting it with stellar plasma and burning away it's surface. Just because it is now hotter so that we can detect it doesn't mean it is rejuvenated.

If I leave the electric oven on and don't notice, but turning off the light in the kitchen allows me to see the orange glow does not mean my oven is rejuvenated. So, why should essentially the same thing mean a planet is?

Comment: Re:More bad science journalism (Score 1) 29 29

Just like when an obscure person becomes well-known, it doesn't make them any younger. And when your body temperature soars during cremation, you also aren't any younger.

Except that the cooling off of a planet is the primary change that comes from a planet getting older. That matters far more than any analogy with the human body which behaves rather differently than a planet. You might was well complain that someone overhauling a small engine with new oil and gaskets so it runs just like new is not rejuvenation because blood transfusions don't make a person younger (actually, nothing you do to a person actually makes them younger...).

Rejuvenation implies that the item rejuvenated is equivalent to function, performance, etc. of an earlier state. Rebuilding a small engine would be a type of rejuvenation. As for a planet, if it is rejuvenated, then not only temperature would change, but plate tectonics and other planetary systems would be, too. Your final comment actually, nothing you do to a person actually makes them younger applies to exoplanets, too.

Comment: Re:It's all relative (Score 0) 167 167

If race and gender aren't based on anything anymore than what the individual identifies themself as, then why should planet of origin be any different? As for being an ambassador or getting diplomatic immunity, isn't that up to the entity granting such privileges, not the one sending them?

Counting in binary is just like counting in decimal -- if you are all thumbs. -- Glaser and Way