Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Inherently unstable system prone to extremes (Score 1) 339

Nope. In the 80's and 90's scientists and politicians were saying that we were in an ice age and needed to prepare. Lots of money went into research and plans for reducing the smog that was causing the ice age. I know that here in Georgia we still miss out on the Federal money for this as our smog levels are too high in Atlanta.

Comment Re:Truly a 1st world problem (Score 1) 242

I used to think this was a joke, but I have been on a plane where it did prevent us from landing. Apparently there was a short somewhere in the grounding. This allowed enough interference from a handheld device to prevent the landing navigation system from working. We ended up circling until they found the man a couple rows in front of me playing on his device.

In a properly grounded plane, I can't see this being an issue. Also, for takeoff there shouldn't be a problem. Having to manually land a plane when the pilots are used to certain instruments working...issue. That being said, I don't see why they shouldn't allow the devices to be on. If there is an issue, simply ask at that point to turn them off.

Comment New (Score 1) 295

Did they fix the bugs, the performance issues, the crashes, the thrashing of the library, the sync issues, the poor UI, the hiding of fields when they don't work properly making it near impossible to troubleshoot, the unresponsive UI, the resource hog? Not sure how a company that can build the crap that is iTunes can build something like iOS, although that's headed the same way: 1st party apps crashing, app store update not working, app icons never installing, sync issues. Go back to doing one thing and making it work Apple. Having most things mostly work is Microsoft's domain, and you're not there.

Comment Summary (Score 1) 224

So to sum up the summary, global warming is causing cooling that is reducing gravity and making satellites more efficient.

"Global warming" has "a cooling effect" that is "reducing the pull that Earth's atmosphere has" and "exerting less drag on satellites."

What great news!

Comment Re:Distinguishing conflict from disagreement (Score 1) 1152

I am saying that you do not have to see the initial stage of something to start the scientific process, which you implied. You can look at life today and want to work backwards, and it is just an valid.

From observation today, we see life. We also see extinction. Tens of thousands of species go extinct each year. We have not observed any new species evolving. That leads to a downward trend, not the upward the evolution implies and requires.

Let's just take mammals so that we can deal with understandable numbers. There are approximately 5000 known species of mammals alive today. In the past 400 years, 89 species have gone extinct. No new species have evolved. From this observation we can work backwards and see that there used to be more species of mammals alive, not less as evolution states. If evolution were true, we would constantly see new life, an upward trend. The facts show that the opposite is true.

Comment Re:Distinguishing conflict from disagreement (Score 1) 1152

I see your problem, you dont even understand science. You assume it has to be an observation of the life being created, if that was the case there would be no science at all in this world.

Science does require observation, but it can be anywhere in the link. If it starts in the beginning, great, if not then we have to sides we work on, one going backwards to the origin, and one going outward to the conclusions.

So you're saying that by our observation that there is life, evolution is true? What observation are you referring to that we are using to work sidewards, backwards, and outwards?

Comment Re:Distinguishing conflict from disagreement (Score 0) 1152

Wow, name calling and broken links. I assume you do not have any arguments or facts at this point. As far as abiogenesis, let's take the Miller–Urey experiment, the first example used in the Wikipedia article. 1) It used an oxygen depleted environment that contained methane. Methane does not exist for very long by itself when exposed to UV rays, which with no oxygen or ozone (O3) would allow for quite a bit of UV rays to hit the earth. Typically methane is produced by a biological process under anaerobic conditions. Since we don't have life yet, from where did the methane come? Currently scientists do not believe the atmosphere used in this experiment (methane, hydrogen, ammonia) is similar to the atmosphere of the early earth (carbon dioxide, nitrogen). 2) It produced mainly soot. In this soot was trace amounts of 22 amino acids. These same amino acids have been found meteorites. They are fairly common molecules. Amino acids are a long ways from self replicating life and soot is even further. I understand the ignorance, but please stop the insults and use some facts and reasoning in response.

Comment Re:Distinguishing conflict from disagreement (Score 0) 1152

Not trying to setup a straw man, but correct me if I'm wrong. The leading theory as best I know it is that the combination of rain and rock turned into a primordial soup of proteins that turned into the first life. As far as I know, nobody has ever observed this happening. Experiments have been conducted trying to reproduce this and all have failed. Doesn't sound like science to me, but more like a religion. Science typically starts with an observation.

Comment Re:Distinguishing conflict from disagreement (Score 1) 1152

I find it insulting. I have thoroughly studied evolution and that is what led me to believe in creation. The thought that a rock created life is absurd. If you just give that rock enough time it will create life, right? What a bunch of BS. You've got to have a lot of faith to believe a rock created all the life on this planet.

Slashdot Top Deals

ASCII a stupid question, you get an EBCDIC answer.