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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Moral outrage! (Score 3, Interesting) 236

Why should they force me to subsidize Oprah's channel when I've no interest in watching it?

Because the people who watch OWN are, in turn, subsidizing the fixed costs of the channels YOU want to watch.

That's right. It's just a hunch, but I bet that people who want ala carte the most have narrower interests, and thus *that* programming needs subsidies more than OWN ( for example).

Started this comment intending to make an "in Soviet Russia" joke (OWN subsidizes you) but now I can't go through with it.

Comment Re:No one cares anymore (Score 1) 131

There's nothing for us out there, unless you are unusually attracted to radiation-blasted vacuum.

Oh yeah, very attracted.

I'm trying to get the gear together to blast it with something else, do my part for panspermia if you catch my drift (or maybe Eris will).

< * waves to Elon * >

Comment Re:Toilet paper and timber? (Score 1) 269

Thanks, I was going to say it if no one else did. :)

In the summary, the phrase " toilet paper, timber, farmland expansion, and other human needs" conflates all of these things. On balance, the paper producers could be actually increasing the number of trees, but be totally offset by clear cutting, etc.

Also, was anyone else actually impressed that we still had half the trees? I kinda am...

Comment Re:Entanglement (Score 1) 214

There are a bunch of phenomenae that look like particles, but also look like wavelike perturbations of a field.

If we could just settle on calling them wavicles, people would be less likely to get hung up because of their preconceived notions of waves and particles. They're both and neither.

These things are subjected to so many tests, maybe we should call them "testicles."