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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Go for it (Score 1) 11

by mcgrew (#49784593) Attached to: Survey - George W. Bush more evil than Stalin, Mao, Lenin

I agree he doesn't belong on that list. I do think on the list of America's worst presidents, he'd be at the top of the list.

Ignored warnings from the previous administration, top FBI officials ignored field agents who were warning of something bad, and got our country attacked.

Then he started an incredibly stupid war in Iraq, which led to the rise of ISIS.

Presided over the building of mass surveillance of the American people.

Took office during a boom, left office under the worst economy since the great depression. It's my theory that what caused the ruined economy was fuel prices more than quadrupling during his reign. Buy gas to get to work, or pay the mortgage? Tough choice!

Took office with a balanced budget, left it with the largest deficit in American history. Meanwhile, infrastructure was crumbling and he did nothing.

Now, if the list was of people who did the most harm to our country, he should be on that list. Mao and Pol Pot were very evil men who killed millions of people, but they didn't harm America.

Comment: Re:Why is this dribble on the front page? (Score 1) 372

by david_thornley (#49784581) Attached to: Creationists Manipulating Search Results

If you take a random sampling of integers

How do you do that? I've never been able to figure what that means.

If you define a way to generate a random sampling of integers from a range, which you can do, then as the range expands the probability that an integer from there is divisible by 10 does indeed go to 0.1.

Comment: Re:Why is this dribble on the front page? (Score 1) 372

by david_thornley (#49784541) Attached to: Creationists Manipulating Search Results

:What you are saying is that there is no scientific reason to believe in God, which is entirely true. However, saying the Universe unfolds as if there were no God isn't correct.

We have discovered some principles called Laws of Nature. We do not understand them fully. If we did, we could derive psychology from physics. Instead, we assume that things proceed according to the Laws of Nature, and that when we come to something that looks wrong we can refine our knowledge of them. We assume that everything happens according to those laws. These assumptions are generally good ones, and have driven a lot of incredibly successful and useful thoughts and experiments. Assuming that something happens because it's God's will and for no other reason is dangerous to scientific reasoning. (This is why I don't believe in compiler errors without extensive verification - while compiler errors do happen, they usually don't, and suspecting them is bad for the debugging process.)

While these are excellent assumptions, they aren't necessarily true. God could influence human thought, for example, and we're not nearly good enough at brain physiology to tell if anything unnatural is going on. God could pull off a few miracles and we'd think there were errors in perception, mass hysteria, false reporting, coincidences, or some purely natural freak of nature. We wouldn't know. We do know that perceptual errors, emotional disturbances, and the rest are possible.

I believe that the best thing to do is to keep religion out of science and science out of religion.

Comment: Re:Why is this dribble on the front page? (Score 1) 372

by david_thornley (#49784413) Attached to: Creationists Manipulating Search Results

Actually, we can quantify faith, although it's normally from self-reporting. We could presumably use EEGs and other devices to make this more objective. There appears to be a biological basis for religion, and that can presumably be measured.

What we can't measure is whether there is any such thing as God.

Comment: Re:I am a Creationist (Score 1) 372

by david_thornley (#49784359) Attached to: Creationists Manipulating Search Results

So you aren't a Creationist in the same sense. The problem is with people who interpret the Bible one way, claim that their interpretation is the one true one, insist on it despite evidence, and in general believe that God couldn't do anything outside their very limited imaginations. Your only claim to Creationism is that you believe God created everything, and most Christians believe that.

Comment: Re:Nope (Score 1) 322

If they had it then collision avoidance would function at that speed but NOT if the driver is mashing the accelerator pedal like they were. Pressing the gas hard disengages the automatic braking with pedestrian avoidance - it also does so when in self parking mode as a safety feature should you be getting carjacked.

Comment: Re:Creationism (Score 1) 372

by david_thornley (#49784307) Attached to: Creationists Manipulating Search Results

Most of humanity believes (more or less) in something halfway recognizable as a god or God (two different concepts). Nobody needs to prove God exists to be taken seriously by most of the population. In fact, religion is something of a red herring here, as most Christians have no problem with science and evolution. There are an unfortunately large number of noisy zealots who insist that the details of what they were told have to be true. (My impression is that these are usually not certain of their faith, and so cling to details, however idiotic, to convince themselves.)

Creationists need to be taken seriously as a threat to education. They needn't be taken seriously intellectually, since they have nothing to offer, but groups of irrational fanatics can be dangerous.

Comment: Re: Climate "Science" (Score 1) 370

by silentcoder (#49784285) Attached to: Can Bad Scientific Practice Be Fixed?

Nothing has convinced me it's true. I support the theory with evidence. You may feel that evidence is weaker than I do. You may even be right but considering the opposition has no evidence whatsoever as a sceptic I still stand with climate change and will do so until and unless somebody presents an alternative theory with stronger evidence.

Comment: Re:Misnomer (Score 1) 322

I assume, and I shouldn't, that "filling up" with diesel is more than your implied "some" which will, indeed, harm the engine. I have had friends who have somehow managed to do this and the opposite (putting gasoline into a diesel) and in all but two cases they have realized the error and had the vehicle towed, drained, and returned. In the two cases that I know of, where they did not notice, catastrophic engine failure was the result. Sadly one was a beautiful old Mercedes that she had borrowed from her father-in-law because her car was in the shop. A replacement engine was too expensive for them so the vehicle was scrapped. I wish I had known they were going to scrape it. It had always been garaged so it had no rust, it was a sad time indeed.

Comment: Re:Misnomer (Score 1) 322

Volvo should anticipate that the driver did not pay for a feature and then attempted to use the feature? The 'feature' in this case requires a whole DIFFERENT system with radar, a front camera, dashboard changes, and software changes... They should anticipate this and, well, do what exactly? You are not entirely to blame. The story and the summary are both wrong. They are not misleading, they are outright wrong.

Comment: Re:Defective (Score 1) 322

Pedestrian detection is a whole other system that requires a front end camera, dashboard alterations, AND an expensive radar mounted under the front bumper. You believe, thus it must be true, that they are ethically mandated to include this several thousand dollar extra (and entirely different) system for free? You believe that the buyer should not be able to opt out of that additional, extra, expensive option and should be forced to purchase it if they only want the parking system which is just sonic and a rear facing camera?

It's not so hard to lift yourself by your bootstraps once you're off the ground. -- Daniel B. Luten

Working...