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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Michelson-Morley were wrong. Ether exists (Score 1) 371

A very lousy comparison implying red doesn't exist.

Space has quite enough properties to be considered 'a medium'. Only our lack of ability to detect anything more 'voidy' keeps the insistence that it's to be treated as a void, lack of anything. In reality it can be warped, like a tensor field, it can carry quite a few other fields, even matter can spontaneously manifest out of it. In light of the increasing number of features that can be assigned to any (empty) point of space, insisting space can't be qualified as a kind of medium becomes pure stubbornness.

Or - can light propagate through anything else than space?

Comment Re:Michelson-Morley were wrong. Ether exists (Score 1) 371

Yeah, the point completely flew over your head.

But let me bite: Rename 'space' to 'aether'. Apply special and general relativity rules normally; that kills the idea of preferred frame of reference - one important point where Michaelson and Morley were wrong. Anything else about aether still doesn't check out?

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 2) 162

Because if cheating is done right, it is hard to proove. Most competitions allow a degree of "Failure" in the game. So if you are running a race, while you are not suppose to come in contact with the person you are racing with. However most judges will not be hardass enough to discredit an accidental hit. However if you are going to cheat, you may "Accidentally" hit your biggest threat just to get him off his stride.

Now this is cheating, however it is hard to prove.
That and sportsmanship lesson one, was to publically not be a sore loser. So saying he cheated is often the call of a sore loser.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 162

Winners tend to win because they take more chances. Playing it safe, means you are going to be in the middle of the pack. But if you take your chances you can win big or lose big, People who have this attitude can see cheating as taking one of those risks.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 162

It is true, but you are expecting a rational train of thought from a person. Being that their self identity is being challenged, they will have more of an instinctual instinct then a well planned thought and consequence.

Besides if you can rationalize it away such as everyone else is doing it ("they cheating too") so by cheating they are keeping the environment equal.

But even in less game method, when our self identity is threatened we will lash out and fight for it. Say you are a programmer and one of those "Rock Star" Programmers always the one being called when things get tough and you have an answer. Then a new guy comes who knows some newer technology, which can solve your problems that you fix better. How quick will you discredit the technology, pointing out any flaw in the system as the key reason why it is obviously inferior. Vs. the more rational thing, of actually taking time to learn and embrace the technology and adding it to your tool box of tools, that can enhance your ability.

Slashdot Top Deals

"When people are least sure, they are often most dogmatic." -- John Kenneth Galbraith