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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Obama Phone (Score 1) 330

Under previous administrations it was considered a "Lifeline" for those who had no other alternative. Obama didn't change the assistance program itself, but he greatly expanded the number of people who can get a free cell phone. For that reason it became known as the Obamaphone and for that same reason the program is far bigger and more costly that was was under previous administrations.

Comment: Re:Why Blast Religion? (Score 1) 246

by tomhath (#49794737) Attached to: How a Scientist Fooled Millions With Bizarre Chocolate Diet Claims

And how do you define "facts" - scientific consensus perhaps?

No. Observable and testable. Consensus has nothing to do with it.

Science routinely re-evaluates its own scientific conclusions and often returns a very different outcome than the previous.

Can you say the same about people who believe what is written in a book that's thousands of years old? Of course not - you're told to take it on faith and not question (re-evaluate) what was written.

I think science seeks "truth", not facts - the same way faith does albeit by way of a different methodology.

No, science seeks observable and testable facts.

Comment: if, and if, and if, then blog (Score 2) 541

by tomhath (#49791167) Attached to: How Tesla Batteries Will Force Home Wiring To Go Low Voltage

if the battery power trend takes off, it must lead to a new paradigm in which homes will be powered more with low voltage wiring than line voltage electrical, according to a blog

A couple of real big if's there. Battery power is unlikely to take off in all but a few low latitude places where the climate is right and it's heavily subsidized. Even then, there are better alternatives than rewiring a house; and of course solar doesn't work for high density housing like a multi-story apartment building..

Comment: Re:Headline versus article (Score 1) 37

by tomhath (#49790999) Attached to: Gene Testing Often Gets It Wrong

Every test and every interpretation has a margin of error; obviously a person should understand the error rate for both false positive and false negative is before making a decision. The headline simply said "often gets it wrong" but I don't see any qualification of what "often" means. One in ten? One in a million? Who knows? Although they do state that some labs are more competent than others; no surprise there.

Nothing happens.