Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Rectifying interference with more interference? (Score 2, Insightful) 228

An unknown, big change is just as likely to be good for humans as it is to be bad.

That is massively untrue. An unknown, big change is much more likely to be bad for humans. When you're dealing with a hugely interconnected web of an ecosystem, big unknown changes are likely to alter the system, such that it stabilizes in a different state. The current state of the world is very nice for humans. An end to many easily caught food species will not be so nice.

Comment Re:Actually it usually does (Score 1) 336

You mean the way the media never reported on the harmful effects of tobacco smoke? Or the way that the BP oil spill has had no news coverage? How about the manner in which the 'mainstream media' has ignored the effects of global warming and failed to publicize the role of industry in carbon emissions?

Comment Re:Give it time (Score 1) 348

Max Planck explains blackbody radiation in terms of quantized light: 1900
Einstein explains the photoelectric effect in terms of quantized light, starting everybody off on experiments, predictions, further understanding of small scale reality: 1905
Not exactly ages. Now look at string theory:
Nambu, Susskind, and Nielson develop the foundations of string theory: 1970
Nearly four decades later, what are the predictions and tests available from string theory? I'm not saying string theory is necessarily wrong; there isn't enough evidence for any statement about its validity to be anything other than essentially a religious belief.

"The Avis WIZARD decides if you get to drive a car. Your head won't touch the pillow of a Sheraton unless their computer says it's okay." -- Arthur Miller