Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:And if one can't believe? (Score 1) 931

This is going to hurt, but I feel the same way about atheism. Atheists are taught that the Universe could just happen, contrary to what we know and observe everywhere else in the Universe.

You already go wrong here. For example virtual particles just "happen", without anything in particular making them appear at this particular moment.

Everything we see and observe has a cause, yet when it comes to the most important event we could discuss you can't ask "where the ball of mass came from for the big bang and how did physics already exist?" or "how did a vacuum just appear with mass, energy, and physics already inside?".

These questions show that you know very little about the Big Bang (BB) theories. First one: There was no ball of mass. The current prevailing inflationary BB theories suggest that after a period of exponential expansion, the observable universe was formed from the energy released from the inflation field in a phase change, giving rise to a high energy state. Second question is basically just a rephrasing of the first one.

The answer from the top atheist propagandist, Lawrence Kraus, is immediately "I don't need some bully in the sky to make the Universe." What? That does not change or answer the questions!

Rubbish. Produce the exact quote in context.

Most atheists are brainwashed into thinking that if they ask about the beginning of the Universe, they are ignorant.

Again, rubbish. The scientific position is that as we have no theory extending to the beginning of our universe, the question is unanswerable. If there is some sort of a specific beginning or a cause, it could be eternal inflation, a guy starting up his computer universe simulator, or Odin. We have no way of differentiating between those options.

Worse, they are taught that anyone asking the question is ignorant.

No. Anyone asking the question *within BB theory* is ignorant of the theory, in the same way that someone asking about the origin of life on Earth with the theory of evolution is ignorant of the theory.

The rest of your post is just you banging on your straw man.


Submission + - Stallman on Unity: Canonical will have to hand over users' data to governments (

Giorgio Maone writes: "Ubuntu developer and fellow mozillian Benjamin Kerensa chatted with various people about the new Amazon Product Results in the Ubuntu 12.10 Unity Dash. Among them, Richard Stallman told him that this feature is bad because: 1. "If Canonical gets this data, it will be forced to hand it over to various governments."; 2. Amazon is bad. Concerned people can disable remote data retrieval for any lens and scopes or, more surgically, use sudo apt-get remove unity-lens-shopping."

Submission + - Ecuador grants asylum to Julian Assange ( 1

jampola writes: "Reuters UK has reported:

"Ecuador has granted political asylum to WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange, Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said on Thursday, a day after the British government threatened to storm the Ecuadorean embassy in London to arrest Assange."

Assange and the Ecuadorian Embassy are still unsure if the UK Police will make good on it's previous threat to forcefully remove Assange."


Ask Slashdot: Find a Job In China For Non-native Speaker? 402

An anonymous reader writes "My fiancée has recently been accepted into a Chinese university into their Ph.D. program, and I've been looking at jobs in China (specifically the Beijing area) and not having any success. I'm a developer with 8 years of experience (java), mostly on the server side, so I'm not lacking in the general experience, but the problem is I don't speak Mandarin or Cantonese. I am a native English speaker from Canada though. The only jobs I've had any responses from were teaching positions for simple English which isn't exactly my first choice. Has anyone had any experience or success as a programmer finding a job in China, without being able to speak the native language? Any websites I should be focusing on?"

Comment Re:Wrongheaded.... (Score 2) 328

I agree with your assessment of TFA. I even went further after reading the fine article: There were 4 commenters, all basically scared of nuclear power, and showing their ignorance in their comments. I wrote a reply to address all of them, but unfortunately I'm not socially networked, so I couldn't actually post it. Sucks to live outside Google, Facebook, Disqus, and so on, I guess. Well, at least I can rant here.

Comment Anonymous Finland denies the hack (Score 4, Informative) 129

This is Anonymous Finland messaging you once again (actually not, the earlier messages were not written nor released by us.)

We have no opinions on any politicians all.
We have not hacked any Finnish websites.
We find antisec childish, among with lulzsec that was nothing but a bunch of bought exploits."

Comment Re:This has been known for years... (Score 1) 332

The GP is correct. Remember how USA didn't need any test for the gun-type bomb before deploying it against Japan? The actual calculations involved aren't too hard; you can do the modelling easily on a home computer in short time, assuming that you know the relevant physical properties (neutron interaction cross-section for the part of neutron spectrum the bomb will use, neutron reflection coefficients if you want to reflectors for improved power, and so on). If you have the materials, you can use them excessively to ensure a decent yield in the construct, as this compression method allows large separation of the fissionable parts, so that you don't have to be limited to 2 x barely sub-critical mass.

Comment Re:Interview with Chernobyl cleanup director (Score 1) 537

Chernobyl was caused partly by operator error. The expert here has clearly an agenda of his own, if he denies that the testing that caused the accident was made outside the original test specs, ie. the power levels when the test was started were way too low, and the operators responding to the unstable conditions caused by the initial power levels were incorrect and ultimately caused the secondary explosion, which was the main cause for the release of the radioactive materials.

The conjecture about overfilled cooling pools is also totally unconfirmed by any other source, as is the claim that the pools drained after the quake. As far as the official story goes, the pools started draining as there was no active cooling (pumps died, like in the reactors) so the stagnating water evaporated by the heat produced by the spent rods, which makes sense as pools drained by the quake would have caused problems immediately, not after a few days.

Slashdot Top Deals

ASCII a stupid question, you get an EBCDIC answer.