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


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:Live (Score 2) 177

by thedonger (#49164335) Attached to: Spock and the Legacy of Star Trek

Agreed the second movie sucked balls. The homage was pure hollywood crap. Shows how JJ Abrams is utterly over-rated. After creating their Star Trek universe they had an opportunity to create new story lines. Instead they punted and decided to destroy a classic movie.

My thought on the reboot is not that they punted and rehashed old story lines; rather, it is meant to demonstrate that even with an alternate future from the original movies -- a smart way to retell a story with the same characters and not be beholden to an old story arc -- they couldn't escape their shared fate, or their shared destiny.

Regardless, I'm just going to enjoy the reboot. That is, unless the next one involves whales and time travel.

Comment: Re:Breaking news! (Score 2) 148

by thedonger (#49136945) Attached to: Artificial Intelligence Bests Humans At Classic Arcade Games

I figured out an endless pattern to Atari 2600 Space Invaders and PacMan, high score stuff. Was thrilled and disappointed to read about my solution in some Atari mag several years after my discovery.

I figured I had beat the computer and was disappointed when I wasn't asked to help defeat Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada.

Fixed that for you.

Comment: Re:What if... (Score 1) 212

by thedonger (#49002135) Attached to: The Search For Neutrons That Leak Into Our World From Other Universes

Yeah, but most of them can spell "holes" properly.

Oh yeah, and math.

I meant to write "whores." Stupid auto correct.

And math? Having all the math we know about correct doesn't mean it isn't based on a faulty premise to begin with. The stranger, or more Star Trek that predictions and hypotheses get, the more I wonder if people are using a little too much imagination to fill in the gaps. Maybe they are correct. Or maybe the alternate universes aren't what we typically conceive them as -- Buckaroo Banzai, et al -- and instead they are states of matter we lack the science to comprehend.

Comment: Re:What if... (Score 0) 212

by thedonger (#49001791) Attached to: The Search For Neutrons That Leak Into Our World From Other Universes

What if the other brane also has a reactor shield in the same spot?

What if this prediction is the result of too many people making a life out of academia, such that they now have to come up with ever-wackier notions? It's as though current theories leave all these wholes, and people get PhD's coming up with nonsense to fill them. It seems like the control against which their observations are measured is their own assumption about what they should not expect to see.

Comment: Re:Boom. Boom. Boom. Another one bite's the dust.. (Score 1) 121

No worries ladies and gents. Just some black hole or star being absorbed into a circle of more stable vacuum than the twitchy sort of vacuum we have over here. Move along. Move along. There's literally nothing to see there.

C'mon, there's got to be some highly implausible yet scientific sounding explanation that blames it on a time hole to the future slamming shut. Right? Maybe Elon Musk has been working on a time portal, but he hasn't quite figured out how to make it appear close enough to be usable?

Comment: Re:A Simple Retort (Score 1) 556

Yes, ultimately I *believe* in gravity. People find evidence of God's existence; others find evidence of gravity's existence. The difference - as I'm sure you are aware - is that one passes the scientific method; the other doesn't or won't submit to it. Then again, dogma finds a way into many non-religious things (hang out with raw vegans and you'll see that in action).

Playing my own Devil's advocate - one can argue that a man-derived scientific method is insufficient to test for the existence of God; after all, if I bake a cake and it decides I don't exist, the cake doesn't disappear.

One thing I think you have wrong -- God wouldn't be inside the universe. God created it. I suppose - going back to the cake analogy - God could bake himself into the cake. But he would still be an exo-cake being, and would have existed before the cake.

Mmmmm, cake.

Comment: Re:A Simple Retort (Score 1) 556

The probability that life would develop on any given planet...

That doesn't prove God; it only provides a good argument that we are very likely alone in the universe, at least to the extent that life has developed here. Sure, 100 light years away there may be a planet with some kind of primordial ooze on its way to becoming life as we know it; however, I'm guessing we won't be around in 100 million years to meet them. Or perhaps by then we will be the Borg and assimilate them all.

Comment: Re:A Simple Retort (Score 1) 556

You have that a little wrong. God *can* (in principle) be proven. If the sky breaks open, choirs of angels break forth, a 10km-long arm reaches down from the skies and an 8km golden-haired, bearded face looks down upon humanity and utters words of unshakable truth...then God is proven.

Except that isn't going to happen. If one believes the bible, at some point the believers will be vanished into heaven, which basically proves God's existence, even if he doesn't show his golden-bearded chops directly to us (which also would kill us, again, only if one believes the bible). At that point the Antichrist rises, and if we do not follow him (or her, if it is Hillary) and we choose God then we get killed. Since the obvious choice is then God is real, but the consequence for following him is death, we get a pass on our lifetime of sin and go to heaven.

Not that I actually think that is going to happen, but it made for some entertaining 1980's rapture movies. And the book of Revelation is a great read.

Comment: Re:It's actually not a contradiction. (Score 1) 44

China has the largest population of internet users. Despite apparent continued attempts to censor what their citizens have access to, the Chinese are very interested in extending international market share of their three state-owned internet companies.

I read it as "China is enhancing the speed at which they can control the internet within their borders."

Comment: A Simple Retort (Score 5, Interesting) 556

The nature of God is such that it cannot be proven. Otherwise, we lose the choice to believe.

That said, science has yet to prove what the universe is, so how could we expect it to prove something outside of it?

Note: My philosophy is "when you die, you're dead."

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 2) 719

by thedonger (#48634693) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.

That's funny. The first definition on Google states "a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.", which seems to be a good fit for those who are denying global warming. If anything, it seems as though the Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry should call themselves something different.

The Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry are Google Deniers.

No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.