Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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

by RelaxedTension (#48334399) Attached to: British Spies Are Free To Target Lawyers and Journalists

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

by RelaxedTension (#47899771) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

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.

Comment: Re:Fallacy (Score 1) 937

by RelaxedTension (#47899449) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

What has the national academi of science to do with that?.

Ummm, it was a response to the question you asked. It is representative of the number of scientists that are atheists versus the number of theists, showing markedly "less" religious people in science, ergo less religious people "flocking" to science.

And science is always presenting us with new and wondrous things on an almost daily basis.

Comment: Re:Fallacy (Score 2) 937

by RelaxedTension (#47899067) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

Any references why/where/when Atheists flock to science and religious peolple not?

I didn't say religious people didn't, actually, only that atheists as a whole do, so perhaps you are reading into it a bit. But, I can't say I've ever hear an atheist denouncing evolution... Just saying.

As far as I know many top scientists proclaim to believe in god ... so do less believers flock to science?

Here's a quote, that I believe to be reasonably accurate, from Wikipedia: "Among the members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7% believed in God, 72.2% did not, and 20.8% were agnostic or had doubts" I don't really need to elaborate any more on that one, do I?

Sorry this whole story is some attempt to fill a noring summer void. There is nothing 'special' about atheists, they are just irdinary people.

Agreed, and I certainly never said otherwise. Seems like you are a bit sensitive about atheism. Take a breath, relax, and remember his noodly goodness loves you even if you don't believe in him.

Comment: Re:Google is an advertising company (Score 1) 236

by RelaxedTension (#47351425) Attached to: Google, Detroit Split On Autonomous Cars
That's why they would buy a company that already has that expertise as well as supply and distribution chains. They would also be buying that production expertise, plus enough patents and patent licenses to allow them to actually move forward. Google is not completely without experience in this kind of situation.

Given the likely intractability of the big car makers to Google's advances (they want the whole pie for themselves, they do not like to share), there may be little alternative if they want to go big at a faster pace than starting a car company from scratch would allow.

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso

Working...