Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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 Re:Not just analytic... (Score 1) 1258

Knowledge and belief are orthogonal to one another. You can believe and not know (religious people), you can not believe and know (everyone with respect to anthropogenic deities that they do not believe in), you can not believe and not know (this usually involves some nebulous, poorly defined concept of 'god'), etc.

As far as claiming that affirming nonexistence of a god concept is just as invalid a position as affirming its existence, let's first define that god concept. Go with "Thor" or "Set" or "El" and I'd say that you have a much stronger case for nonexistence than existence, seeing as many falsifiable claims have been made regarding these god concepts, and these claims have been falsified.

Comment Re:I recommend months to a year later (Score 2) 158

My home PC isn't beastly enough to run Skyrim (barely manages Oblivion), so I've picked it up for my Xbox 360 and will play it to death on there until my PC either dies or I get fed up with it and upgrade it sometime in 2012, at which point Skyrim for PC will be exactly what it ought to be. Even as it is right now, Skyrim on 360 is far and away the most awesome game I've played on this console in a long, long time, and possibly ever.

Comment Re:I do think about this time to time (Score 1) 515

Because criminals would never think about getting a gun illegally, right?

Lots of people aren't criminals until they make the mistake of actually using their gun. The "only criminals will have guns" angle only works if the proportion of gun fire that results in injury or homicide which happens to come from people with existing criminal records is so high as to render illegalization negligible.

Comment Re:Not with our current tools (Score 1) 295

Dang, someone's a little narrow-minded. You can be proud of being an indie game developer all you want, but until dev houses like Bethesda, Bioware, Team Ico, and the like disappear, you're going to have your work cut out for you trying to match the combination of story, immersion, "resonating with people," and visual fidelity that they are capable of on "locked-down console" _and_ PCs.

Play good console (and PC "installed") games so that you know what to aim for when you're working on your own product. Play just bad ones that you consider "shiny paper-thin and hollow" and you merely hold yourself to lower standards.

Comment Re:Man-made global famine? (Score 1) 292

So what we should be working on is "climate stabilization"! >_>

We are talking about the idea of duplicating the effects of a volcanic eruption so as to "counter" ... warming. Not ocean acidification. Not cooling in some regions vs warming in others (climate change, indeed, is different in different parts of the globe). No. Particulates limiting the amount of sun that reaches the surface leads invariably to cooling.

Comment Re:5 Over (Score 1) 717

Not quite. It's not fun to do but if you look into the kinds of vehicles involved in accidents where one has serious injuries and fatalities the other has everyone with barely a bruise, the first thing you will notice is the former will be a light car while the latter is a heavier truck or SUV. The gist of it is this: you only need one vehicle's crumple zones to actually crumple in the collision. You will notice that the heavier vehicle stays close to fully intact while the light car gets its crumple zones (and then some) smashed in. This is due to a number of factors, sometimes even including smaller vehicles having better-designed (i.e. more likely to crumple) crumple zones, what parts of the vehicles actually collide with each other, etc. In any case this is all clearly demonstrated every time you see a collision of a semi with a regular car. (Hardly anything happens to the semi and its driver, and the other car often has fatalities.) Indeed, the other car sustaining greater damage really _does_ mean you are more likely to live because the less damage your car sustains the less chance of anything but an airbag smashing into you.

Comment Re:An asteroid 100km across? Err , I don't think s (Score 3, Insightful) 121

The last sentence of that summary has _got_ to be a wording mistake. The impact CRATER in Siberia is 100km across. The impactor was (I just looked it up), "either an eight-kilometer diameter chrondrite asteroid, or a five-kilometer diameter stony asteroid." Indeed, an asteroid 100km across hitting the surface would leave something just a tad bit more noticeable than anything we've got so far, heh. And yes it would do really bad things to life on the planet; you're right on that count.

Slashdot Top Deals

We don't know who it was that discovered water, but we're pretty sure that it wasn't a fish. -- Marshall McLuhan