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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Have they considiered... (Score 1) 293

So, this dark matter, what is it? Because it seems to me that it hasn't been defined properly, it's just a massive kludge that scientists did when their observations didn't make scientific sense according to our current best theories of physics.

Dark matter is a theory without basis, it says oops, our measurements don't make sense. What is it, axions? - a type of particle that hasn't even been proved to exist. Dark matter is a theory shakily based on other unproven theories, proposed because the initial theories aren't working.

Comment Re:Dark matter fighting dark energy (Score 1) 293

Nice to hear some skepticism here on Slashdot. It certainly seems like scientists desperately want dark matter and dark energy to exist because their numbers are never adding up. It looks like bad science when they keep fiddling with the numbers to patch up their deficient theories.

Comment Android version sucks. (Score 1) 144

Its had too many features removed and freezes for up to 20 seconds if you stop a page load, pages screw their formatting up, it has no solution for popup boxes that center themselves offscreen., both pretty unusable. (galaxy note 2). no undo close tab. most options removed.

Comment Re:damn philanthropists (Score 1) 406

Really, what is the point of your post, would you prefer that philanthropists are never criticised?

It seems to me that philanthropy is often a way for the mega-rich to try to right their wrongs. The likes of Bill Gates et al can't even do that right, see

It also serves to distract from their questionable actions.

No rich person makes their money, the workers of the companies they own make the money. Rich is not right, greed is not good. Philanthropy does not absolve the rich of their greed.

Comment Re:At what speed? (Score 1) 722

That would cause a pile-up.

Note the massively different braking distances, even in the same car model - braking differences of up to 40 meters

This idea of cars driving bumper to bumper is pure fantasy, extremely dangerous, would cause a pile-up, regardless of how good inter-car communications is etc.

Comment Re:At what speed? (Score 1) 722

They can do 160km/h safely, bumper to bumper.

No, they can't.

Even with the same car, stopping from 40mph, some stops took 40 meters longer than others. 40 meters is not bumper to bumper.

Pile-ups happen because people don't understand stopping distances.

Comment Re:At what speed? (Score 1) 722

If the gov'ts and councils that actually build and maintain the roads charged the costs to the vehicles that actually do the damage there would be much less of a problem. HGVs should have weight taxes, they rip up the roads. I think the percentage of gov't revenue that comes from fines is miniscule after the cost of policing those fines is taken in to account.

Comment Re:Show time (Score 1) 722

" The car can be trusted to drive within its own limits.."

That is not the correct way to look at it, there are parts of London where it is hard enough to try and navigate lanes without having cars going at stupid speeds.

Just because the car can drive at 50mph doesn't mean it should, that would cause problems for non-computer controlled cars, bicycles, horses, pedestrians etc.

If the car is driving down a thin residential London road with a van parked and a gap behind the van, will it slow to 5mph so as to avoid running over anyone who might step out from behind the van? ( example road ).

Comment Terrorists thank facebook for their cooperation. (Score 1) 201

Well thank god for that, how could terrorists spread their message of hate and terror without Facebook's cooperation, thank you Facebook, from terrorists everywhere.

And that goes for the politicians and the news media too, thank you for scaring the shit out of people, rather than pointing out the low odds of being killed by terrorists, the terrorists would be nothing without you. You help to put the 'terror' in to terrorism.

Submission + - Firefox's blocked-by-default Java isn't going down well (

JG0LD writes: The Firefox web browser will, henceforth, require users to manually activate Java objects on sites that they visit, Mozilla has confirmed. The change is aimed at improving security and moving away from a dependence on proprietary plug-ins, but critics say it will cause untold headaches for developers, admins and less-technical end-users.

Slashdot Top Deals

You're not Dave. Who are you?