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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Compare to the Higgs boson (Score 1) 500 500

3 sigma corresponds to 0.135%. It might not be enough for an official discovery, but if I were a betting man operating under the assumption that the results are wrong, I'd bet my money on the existence of some problems with the experimental design that create a signal by some incidental mechanism, and not on the chance that something with 0.135% probability of occurring has occurred.

Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 2) 500 500

You're the one who's very wrong, because you misunderstood the person you were replying to.

We already know the useful "laws" we use are just approximations, e.g. ohm's law, hooke's law, boyle's law, etc.

That's exactly what GP was saying. Modern physics does not pretend to be anything more than a series of useful approximate predictions. A hammer is neither right nor wrong, it is merely useful or not useful. Same goes for Newtonian mechanics, relativity, quantum theory, etc.

Comment Re:Can't stop it (Score 1) 429 429

Google could technically do the same for everyone on that spreadsheet. Sharing their own salary info would not be mentioned on the official papers as reason for termination, But their accessing/showing the spreadsheet could be grounds for termination upon suspicion of gaining unauthorized access to HR systems.

The problem is that judges aren't retarded, and if google fired a significant number of those people, they'd have an unwinnable class action suit on their hands before you can say "nine digit settlement".

That's the benefit of doing it en masse -- no plausible deniability on their part.

Comment Re:Obligatory XKCD (Score 1) 581 581

Public service announcement: "free speech" is a concept that exists outside the context of the US constitution. Here's some more thoughts on that, from reddit of all places (http://www.reddit.com/r/TiADiscussion/comments/2h53ov/the_irony_in_xkcds_free_speech_comic/):

You've all probably seen it before, but in case you haven't, here it is: http://xkcd.com/1357/
It's about free speech, and how some idiots think free speech means you can say whatever you want without any repercussions. Of course that's not true, as Randall points out, the first amendment just means that the government can't persecute you for simply having an opinion, people however are free to react to you however they want.
However I've noticed this comic being posted by people solely as justification for censorship or as a simple reply to a complaint about censorship. Instead of making an actual argument for censorship specific to the situation at hand they post this... but what does the comic say then? That the most compelling thing you can say for censoring is that it's not illegal to censor? Ironically this is a mirror image of what the title text of the comic says about defending your argument with free speech, only you're defending your censorship with the lack of free speech.
Picture this:
Person A censors Person B
B: "Freedom of speech! It's literally not illegal to say something so I should be able to say what I want without repercussions."
A: "XKCD comic! It's literally not illegal to censor you so I'm going to censor you."
And no one gives any legitimate arguments for justifying their actions or opinions.

Comment Re:Who cares? (Score 1) 581 581

reddit became as popular as it is in large part because it allowed everyone to talk about anything they wanted. And it confuses you why people might be angry that they are now not only changing that, but also taking their users for idiots by lying about what's really going on? Let me put it this way -- if you found out your girlfriend of 10 years has started fucking your rich neighbor, wouldn't you be a tad ticked off? Or would you be perfectly satisfied by someone telling you you can go find another girlfriend?

Comment Re:Infinity (Score 1) 1067 1067

That context does not exist in the expression "0*log0". You invent it. Can you tell me what it is inherently about 0*log0 that tells you it makes sense to imagine it as the limit of x*log(x), instead of, for example, as the limit of 0*sum_{n=1}^N (-1^n)/n? Setting aside the fact that it happens to give the same answer, as that is immaterial.

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A giant panda bear is really a member of the racoon family.

Working...