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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:'Big Rip' better than Heat Death (Score 1) 174

Heat death gives us an awful long time to work on figuring out extracting vacuum energy, and leaves a viable universe for us to maintain a bubble of livable space in. Given the trillions of years we would have, it should be long enough to figure out how to big-bang our own new universe as well, assuming we still need to inhabit that kind of physical space after that long.

Of course, the big rip would give us a reason not to procrastinate for billions of years, so I guess there's something to be said for having a literal drop-dead timeline to motivate you.

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 1051

Credible citations please. There are numerous credible studies that say just the opposite, especially with regard to the autism link, or the complete lack thereof. Just saying there is proof does not make it true, especially when there is little to show to backup your claims.

The last decade has shown exactly the opposite of what you are saying. Less vaccinations has resulting in outbreaks of diseases in the last decade that were basically extinct 20 years ago.

Comment Re:There can be no defense of this. (Score 1) 184

you see a point you disagree with and go into attack mode.

No, to paraphrase your original post:

There is reason to allow this abhorrent practice.
There has to be oversight if it's done though.
There likely cannot be effective oversight so we shouldn't do it.

The first line is the problem. The rest means nothing in that context. If you meant otherwise you failed to clearly articulate it.

Comment Re:Yes it is a peering problem ... (Score 2) 243

Got it, but where does the fact that the traffic has been requested by the users the target network play into it? The more appropriate term here is "puller" as opposed to "pusher". The traffic would not be there except for the end network requesting it in the first place.

Comment Re:Fallacy (Score 1) 937

who are you/anyone come to the idea that atheists flock to science.

Why, I am ME. I have both the ability and the right to come to any idea or notion that I damn well choose. The question is who are you to imply otherwise? You must be from a place that tries to restrict what a person thinks. Welcome to freedom of thought and expression, it's a warm and inviting place that people flock to.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding you, and you are getting hung up on semantics. Perhaps I should have said science tends to draw people that have a greater tendency question everything. The complete lack of credible evidence for religion eventually persuades them to release that belief in a deity. Drawn to, flocked, whatever.

A bug in the hand is better than one as yet undetected.