Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

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).


Comment: Re:Indeed, Scientific Zealotry Hurts the Cause ... (Score 1) 1766

by kwietman (#23160384) Attached to: Ben Stein's 'Expelled' - Evolution, Academia and Conformity
"Any time someone tells you about something that happened in the past, you have to either BELIEVE that or not." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. When I use the word "believe," it's a concession to the evidence, which is strong enough to convince me. I try not to use it too much. I believe that the laws of physics were the same millions (and billions) of years ago because all the observable evidence of the universe points to the laws of physics being static, up until a few picoseconds after the initial event (beyond that, without data, I don't speculate. You may place any creators you wish within that box, but be prepared to be questioned about evidence). When someone says that they believe in ID, it (generally) means that they believe it in spite of the strong evidence suggesting that natural selection occurs, or believe it due to an erroneous or incomplete knowledge of the processes involved. Behe's irreducible complexity has already been discredited, for instance, yet the argument is commonly used to support the idea of ID as a scientific theory. The statement that all evidence from the past must be believed because it cannot be demonstrated is argumentative twaddle. Do you, then, believe that photographs, film, etc. are not really recordings of the past? How about physical measurements of blue shift, or argon-potassium dating? Do you believe that recorded evidence that says that experiments done to determine gravitation, velocity, etc. will end with different results than those previously recorded? I do not succumb to belief, I acknowledge evidence. When and if there is positive, reproducable, experimental evidence of ID, I will acknowledge it as well. Be well.

+ - CA SoS: Electronic Voting Inherently Insecure

Submitted by kwietman
kwietman (795554) writes "Echoing the concerns of privacy and security experts across the nation, California's Secretary of State Debra Bowen has reported that electronic voting, which is common in California, is rife with security concerns. The report ( ), conducted by computer scientists at the University of California, evaluates Diebold and other companies in terms of security, accuracy and verifiability. According to a story on Newsweek's web site ( k/), Bowen says, "Things were worse than I thought. There were far too many ways that people with ill intentions could compromise the voting systems without detection." Bowen took the radical step of decertifying voting machines, allowing some to be used only with "hardening" of security. Manufacturers of voting machines, of course, are claiming that the tests do not reflect "real-world conditions." Will this study spark similar looks at electronic voting in other states, as election officials become more enamored of technology?"

Take your work seriously but never take yourself seriously; and do not take what happens either to yourself or your work seriously. -- Booth Tarkington