Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Re:Attractive proposition (Score 1) 288

And as far as a universe with no beginning or end is concerned, what's the problem? I was dealing with infinite open shapes (lines, planes) in grade school, unending closed shapes are trivial (a circle, a sphere), and if you assume our universe is a 4-dimensional "slice" of an n-dimensional space it's not that hard to construct an arrangement where you can travel forever in any "direction"

Sort of like a world in Minecraft, well, at least in the XZ coordinates.

Comment Re:Easier for denialists (Score 1) 895

Do you accept the theory of evolution? If so, then would you subscribe to the assertion that the ("rich") Miami Millionaire was just naturally selected to survive AGW, whereas the poor Bangladeshi Farmer was not? I find it ironic that we can accept evolution as the mechanism that produced the complexity of humanity, but then disregard it in the face of AGW. Maybe the Miami Millionaire was just spawned in the better petri dish. He lives.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a creationist (you insensitive clods), and believe in helping out the downtrodden whenever I can. I just find it ironic that we'll accept the geologic timescales and probabilities required of evolution theory, but then get worked up over AGW, which on the x-axis of the accepted geologic time-scale isn't even of sufficient duration to stand out as it's own data point. If geologically abrupt, cataclysmic events (e.g., dinosaur extinction, ice ages, etc.) served to evolve us to the point we're at now, then won't AGW just serve to 'advance' us via natural selection to the next level? Or have we just beaten entropy all these millions of years to only now succumb to it?

Comment Re:I dont need it. (Score 1) 602

I'm a nerd. Chess club. Picked on. Etc. And I found that I really enjoyed American Football in high school. I wasn't any good at it. I was third string. I got flattened a lot. But what intrigued me was the complexity. Sure, there's some mindless violence at local levels, but above that, incredible sophistication and elegance at the macro and global levels. The plays and counter-plays themselves are incredibly complicated, and when you watch college and pro games live or on TV, you really are seeing two coaches playing a game of chess against one another. Spend some time in a college sports forum and watch with what detailed analysis sports nerds pick apart the plays, the strategies, etc.

And I found that the same was true for just about any competitive sport. I spent four years as the statistician for a basketball team -- the coaches were nerds when it came to things like shot groupings, trends, etc., and the players were always looking for ways to squeeze out just a little more performance -- kind of like overclockers, only athletic.

Your point about the 'tidy conclusion' is pertinent as well, imho. As an example of a violent civil-war rivalry turned athletic-sportsmanship competitive, consider the KU-Missouri rivalry:

Now, do I prefer spending my spare time playing MW2 over playing club sports these days. Yup. But I think that's just my medium of choice.

Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock.