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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Seems self-contradictory (Score 1) 387

An assumption of one universe might happen to match the human limitations of observing universes, but it also arbitrarily assumes there's some condition that limits the number of universes. Since we have never discovered such a condition, shouldn't someone using empirical evidence as their standard therefore assume that there is no limit?

Comment Re:Done in movies... (Score 1) 225

Not a lawyer, but I believe a court would consider that "self defense". The principle is sometimes extended to include defending others. Although I'm sure it would be very unusual to have a situation where self defense required killing an innocent. Pretty sure it would apply to torturing the terrorist though. IMO that's why legalizing torture isn't necessary. There's already implicit exceptions to the law that apply in various "Jack Bauer" scenarios. There's also something the courts call "criminal intent". You can't accidentally commit a crime. Don't believe you can be coerced into committing a crime either.

Comment Congrats guys (Score 4, Insightful) 608

Now we're not just sexist pigs, but we are also in an unstable industry and women will avoid us like the plague. Actually I don't find this stuff as insulting as the "anyone can code" meme. Maybe we should all wear suits so that people take us seriously, like lawyers. Actually, that might be the real reason women don't get involved. Their parents don't take the profession seriously, so they steer their smart daughters away from it.

Comment Re:Arthur C. Clarke called it a long time ago (Score 1) 304

There's only costs involved if you assume there's a still a free market economy. If the free market is replaced by government managed robots providing for everyone's needs, then there's truly zero costs. Robots would collect all resources from publicly owned land, and provide all goods and resources. Why is any exchange of money required? Obviously, I'm assuming the robots would be amazingly capable, but that's the scenario we're discussing here. One where robots have taken over all human labor.

Comment Doesn't quite make sense to me (Score 1) 186

Just doing some searching on Google it seems the lift/drag ratio for a wing-in-ground-effect vehicle is about 10:1. A typical load/rolling resistance ratio for a tire appears to be about 100:1. So I don't see how the lift can be generated anywhere near efficiently enough it to improve overall efficiency. Unless my numbers are all wrong or they have something way more efficient than a wing-in-ground-effect.

Slashdot Top Deals

In English, every word can be verbed. Would that it were so in our programming languages.