Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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: "Flying car" is absurd (Score -1, Troll) 96

by qbitslayer (#43506921) Attached to: Hyundai's Flying Car Flies For an Audience

The idea that, one day, our cities will be filled with flying vehicles that push stuff downward to stay afloat, vehicles that lack the maneuverability and stopping power of wheeled vehicles, is absurd on the face of it. In other words, forget propellers, rockets, wings and all that other silly nonsense. Physicists will have to seriously retrace their steps to figure out where they went wrong because they will need to fully grok the nature of motion to solve this problem. Only a full understanding of motion can reveal that we are moving in a vast ocean of motive power, an immense lattice of energetic particles. No lattice -> no motion. Bountiful energy free for the taking, if only we knew how. Floating sky cities impervious to earthquakes, tsunamis and bad weather; New York to Beijing in minutes; Earth to Mars in hours. That's the glorious future of energy and travel. Read Physics: The Problem with Motion if you're interested. You don't understand motion even if you think you do.

Comment: Re:Pseudoscientific Crap (Score -1, Flamebait) 278

by qbitslayer (#43442807) Attached to: Scientists Are Cracking the Primordial Soup Mystery

Even though you are being modded up by the usual suspects and I am being modded down, everything you said above is pseudoscientific crap. Sorry. Genetic algorithms have already shown that natural selection can operate on pre-life patterns? This is pure unmitigated BS on the face of it.

Comment: Re:Pseudoscientific Crap (Score 1) 278

by qbitslayer (#43442739) Attached to: Scientists Are Cracking the Primordial Soup Mystery

This non-chaotic-system that gave rise to complex life, what gave rise to it, and don't say it was just always there ...

There are two realms. In one, the physical realm, you find things that can be created and destroyed. In the other, you find things that can neither be created nor destroyed; they just are. The blue and red colors that you consciously sense and the flavors that you taste from food do not exist in the physical world, even if you think they do.

Comment: Pseudoscientific Crap (Score -1, Troll) 278

by qbitslayer (#43442565) Attached to: Scientists Are Cracking the Primordial Soup Mystery

Karl Popper is turning in his grave as I write. This crap is about as scientific as the flat earth hypothesis. The idea that a chaotic system can give rise to complex life is in the not even wrong category. I am not saying that the probabilities are small. I am saying that the probability is exactly zero. Why? Because, as any programmer can tell you, the beneficial code combinations are dwarfed by the destructive combinations by many, many orders of magnitude. Things can never get to the self-replicating stage because they are guaranteed to be destroyed before anything vaguely interesting can happen.

This is just propaganda crap for dirt worshipers. Sorry, the dirt-did-it crowd is much less credible than the aliens did it crowd.

Comment: Re:The problem (Score 2) 205

by qbitslayer (#43129333) Attached to: Why All the Higgs Hate? It's a 'Vanilla' Boson

I agree with you but if you don't get the public excited, you'll lose their support and their money. The public is looking to be surprised with discoveries that take their breath away. Even a new hypothesis that explains things in a different light would be more exciting then the Higgs boson. If the physics community cannot come up with something that blows everybody's socks off, they can look to further reductions in funding. Sorry. Telling it like it is.

Comment: Re:Trust Robots? (Score 1) 216

by qbitslayer (#43089681) Attached to: When Will We Trust Robots?

The only way to gain trust in anything is to interact with them for a while. This goes for other people, robots and animals. We trust some animals and not others, even animals that belong to the same species. Some people will never trust robots because they suffer from robophobia. Others will have no fear of robots until they go through a bad experience. It will depend solely on the temperament of the robot. If it has a vile disposition, it will not be trusted, period. Propaganda is not going to do it.

Nothing in progression can rest on its original plan. We may as well think of rocking a grown man in the cradle of an infant. -- Edmund Burke