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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Ad blocking to fit under your cap (Score 1) 406

When you discover that the first several results from a search on a search engine "break", good luck letting sites "keep the pieces" while keeping some sense that search engines are still useful. Imagine performing some random web search, but you discover that the first five results on the page that look relevant are broken due to your ad blocking policy. But you don't know they're actually broken until you've already spent time viewing them. Your back button is going to get a lot of workout, and you'll spend a lot of time looking at broken pages.

For 5 pages this takes 5 or 10 seconds. Not a lot of time compared to the damage done by a compromised computer. It's like everything else in live. You can cry about all the time it takes to put on a condom or you can not get AIDS. Your choice.

Comment Re:Now let's talk about (Score 1) 273

The first nation to call themselves a democracy was a fascist hellhole in which up to 80% of the population lived in slavery. A republic, res publica, on the other hand was literally an organisation that dealt with all public things as opposed to all private things, that the individual people dealt with. Basically the opposite of the US System now. The US Republic only deals in secrets, whereas no aspect of any person's live is private anymore. LOL words.

Comment Re:Faith is not separated from the real world (Score 0) 305

Unless you have such a vague notion of faith as to make it effectively meaningless it HAS to intrude on the material plane.

Well, let's test this scientific theory of yours by asking for examples... Please, list such "intrusions"...

Is there any religion without an origin story like "turtles all the way" or "god did it in 6 days" or similar bullshit?

Comment Re:Faith is not separated from the real world (Score 1) 305

Since when is "dictating behavior" the domain of science?

You have to wash your hand between performing an autopsy and delivering a baby. You have to heat a chicken to 75 Celsius before eating it. You have to wear a safety belt while driving a car. You may not dump chemical waste into drinking water supply. I'm sure you're able to find millions of other examples.

Comment Re:truly an inspiration. (Score 1) 494

It is just as silly and repugnant to use today's moral standards to judge people who lived in far different times

When they are discussed as moral role models for people today they absolutely need to be judged by today's standard. And by these standards he was just another child molesting mass murder.

Comment Re:How about energy conservation? (Score 1) 288

Conservation of energy - the assumption that energy cannot be either destroyed or created - is a fundamental axiom in physics, which goes against the idea that there was a point in time before which the universe didn't exist, but after, it did

Emi Noether showed in the first half of the last century that conservation of energy is equivalent to time invariance ("shift symmetry of time"). At the beginning of time, i. e. the beginning of the universe, there was no time invariance; time was just being "created". Hence no conservation of energy.

Comment Re:I've got this (Score 1) 400

Should NBC be able to air detailed plans to create a nuclear weapon? If you answer 'yes' to this, then I have to write you off as a crazy ideologue.

Isn't the real question: Should NBC be banned from airing detailed plans to create a nuclear weapon? If you think they should be banned: Who else should be banned from doing so? Universities? Why? Why not?

If you answer 'no', then you have to admit that there are limits to freedom of expression and it is just a matter of finding a consensus position.

I think they should not. There are far better ways to learn how to build a nuclear weapon than a television series; most of it is engineering and the only way to learn that is by actually designing and building stuff. Watching other people do it just doesn't cut it. A television program is therefore not required.

I'm actually not sure if there should be limits to freedom of speech. Maybe it would be better to allow all speech (even the "shouting fire in a theatre"). Hard to tell. Do you have any data to support either side of the discussion or will you only contribute some random insults?

Comment Re:Uh... Yeah? (Score 1) 242

I'd argue it was very good, that only thousands of lives were lost, instead of the millions if spycraft had failed.

John Stockwell, former CIA Station Chief in Angola in 1976, working for then Director of the CIA, George Bush estimated in 1987, 27 years ago, that over 6 million people have died in CIA covert actions. See http://www.informationclearing.... What do you think? Have they doubled their number by now?

Comment Re:Peer review (Score 1) 154

As another poster said, his ideas lead to the necessity of only one high tide at noon, and we know that isn't true

Both sides had no explanation for tides. This is not a difference in the quality of the theories, no predictive or explanatory power on either side.

His idea of the motion of the planets still relied on epicycles to explain why they appeared to move forward then backwards then forwards again throughout the year because he was stuck on perfectly circular orbits.

Again: Both theories are wrong; Galileo's is arguably closer to the truth.

Geocentricism certainly wasn't right, but its predictive power was better than Galileo's ideas.

Galileo's observed that Venus exhibited a full set of phases in clear violation of Ptolemy's geocentric model. His discovery of a couple of Jupiter's moons proofed that not all heavenly bodies orbit the earth. These are some examples for Galileo's theory being superior to geocentrism. Can you name a concrete example, where the church's geocentric model actually did better than Galileo's ideas?

There's nothing 'wrong' or unscientific about disagreeing with Galileo, because Galileo was wrong.

I agree. But to reject it because it is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." is wrong an unscientific. Again: I'm not arguing that Galileo was right. With todays knowledge it is easy to see how wrong he was.

Comment Re:Peer review (Score 1) 154

But, as science, his astronomical theories were way off the mark, and he was going around asserting them to be true without question, all the while by insulting some of the most powerful people on the planet.

I think it's not fair to measure him against what we know today. You have to compare his model against the scientific believe and knowledge of his time. That is what science is all about: finding a model that is less wrong than the model you had before. Are you arguing that the geocentric model is less wrong than what Galileo proposed? Which is closer to the truth? I understand that Galileo's model is more wrong than the geocentric model we use today but that seems irrelevant to the case.

Slashdot Top Deals