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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:More terrible science journalism (Score 1) 77

While you are correct, one thing we must tackle is the standard candle. We don't know with certainty just how far stuff is. Locally, we are pretty close to figuring out distance. Not surprisingly, as distance increases, our candles are extrapolations of a best guess. Until we fine-tune the candles I don't see us making much progress.

Comment Re:So? (Score 1) 77

... there's significant evidence that the theory is at least partially incorrect.

Too softball. That's not what the article said. "Significant," evidence is redundant. Evidence is sufficient on its own and scientists don't have that yet. That's the point of the effort. "At least partially incorrect," suffers as well. "Incorrect," does not need modifiers. Scientists have verified Hubble's Constant since it became a thing. While the precise value is difficult to pin down, the value still exists for now.

It's like saying, "Relativity (special and general) needs to be re-examined." Of course it does and it has been since its inception.

We still need to examine both, especially because advancing technology provides better tools. However, let's not restate the problem with inaccuracies.

Comment Re:I would even ban cruise control (Score 1) 86

I find cruise control a blessing on long drives. I can concentrate on other things, like the environment around me. Speeding tickets are also a non-issue.

My last rental car (in Texas for the eclipse) had adaptive cruise control, which I really like. I've looked in to retrofitting this to my own car (a 2016 Golf with dumb cruise control) but decided it's not worth the hassle. It also had lane assist. This showed me what it would be like to drive with an autopilot, though if it got angry with me if I took my hands off the wheel for more than 10 seconds. Nevertheless, I see the attraction.

...laura

Comment What that is? (Score 4, Informative) 74

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of man-made chemicals that have been used in various industries since the 1940s. They are known for their resistance to heat, water, and oil, making them useful in products like non-stick cookware, stain-resistant fabrics, firefighting foams, and more. However, PFAS are also persistent in the environment and can accumulate in the human body over time. Studies have linked exposure to PFAS with various adverse health effects, including cancer, liver damage, immune system disruption, and developmental issues. Due to their widespread use and potential health risks, PFAS have garnered significant attention from regulatory agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Working...