Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
You are not envisioning a fact based result but a "your opinion" based result. Not really what is discussed here. Fox News for instance, gets more facts right then wrong even though they are selected to shill for the republicans. You have no facts stating that _ALL_religious_websites are wrong.
Not in science. A fact is an observation or evidence that has been repeatedly observed to be true. It doesn't mean always true or only true.
The problem is when existing theories compete. OR more precisely points within large theories compete. Take relativity for instance, gravitational waves help explain the big bang but not all observations support the big bang model. But gravitational waves are considered fact for the purpose of the theory even though it has never been directly observed because it can be explained in mathematical computations that explain observations.
So what happens when we actually detect them for real and they operate slightly different than we think? Does this new observation or fact get pushed to the front of the line or is it buried because the fact engine hasn't updated yet or the wikipedia article it is referencing is in a mod battle. How about if something else is found to explain the theory concerning gravitational waves but lives in the same limbo as gravitational waves in which it hasn't been directly observed but can explain observations with math also.
It reminds me in the 80's when (and I forget who) some doctor was claiming most stomach ulcers were the result of bacteria. Turns out that is a fact but he was originally ridiculed because the fact at the time was that no one believed that bacteria could survive in the stomach's acidic environment longer than it takes to pass through it. Now the fact is that it's cheaper to just giving a couple antibiotics and seeing if the ulcer disappears than to test if the ulcer is bacteria related or other. But it was indisputable at one time, then someone disputed it and now it is indisputable again. Facts change.
He did_not_say hell existed. He said might exist. Go ahead and go back and read it. His exact words was
there might be a hell
As I said, this is as much a religious argument as it is a scientific argument. All it is doing is asking if someone is concerned there might be consequences for actions.
If he said this guy was going to hell, or hell has a special place for him or similar, I can agree with you. But he did not say that and words impart thoughts which we can understand by the use of the words involved and might does not in any way signify there is, it only acknowledges that some think there is.
Look at the bottom edge. EXACT SAME placement of headphone, charging port, speaker grill...
Come on. Man up and at least admit that part alone is a direct copy.
Great link. I was thinking of nearer objects (like a plane) with a powerful $300 laser, but it's interesting to see how much further you'd have to go to have a visible effect on the moon.
I doubt that, there are no sharks in space.
Oh, you are serious. Well, that was my first thought too. Either a laser weapon or a small particle of something (meteorite) smashed through it causing a catastrophic failure..
It would be interesting to see what a stadium full of synchronized powerful laser pointers could do...
Turns out those green laser pointers you get in the mail are a lot more powerful than you would think.
It's interesting that he declares something is good for a country without qualifying it. What he means is it is good for the idealized country he wants which is the same as putting your idealism above what is good for the country.
Even if it is interstate commerce, the constitution says congress has the power to regulate it not some extra legislative commit or department. It doesn't resolve the need for an act of congress to create the regulation or even pass the standards for the regulation to a department created for that reason. And there lays the problem, the FCC has openly and often admitted that congress never intended the FCC to regulate the internet in the ways it is trying to do. Congress has never given the FCC the power to create laws or rules for existing laws that would allow this to survive a constitutional challenge in court.
However, that doesn't change the fact that, while basically every step of the process is potentially up for grabs, the URLs stamped into the disk are static. Short of replacing the disk nobody gets to change them.
If you control the JVM, you can rewrite them there, if you control the player's OS, you can rewrite them there, if you arrange for your host to be the one replying you can provide whatever response you wish, all true, all bad; but not the same as changing the URLs on the disk.