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 Re:scientists can be as bad as religion (Score 1) 99

It is religion if we say that science produces knowledge that is reality.

As I see it, science is a technology that produces higher qualities of usable knowledge. Religion does not produce knowledge. It is apples and oranges when arguing one against the other.

My other argument is that if science is BS, as Socrates may say, it is very effective knowledge. Do we care if it is reality so long as my plane can create lift or that I can power my computer with electricity? No, so long as the algorithms that create the effect are always valid. I think this is a more humble approach that science asks us to consider so that it can continue creating new knowledge.

Comment Re:scientists can be as bad as religion (Score 0) 99

I am not sure why you want to conclude stuff, but your conclusion is incorrect. Because we do not know if there ARE x-rays does not make the fact that we understand that a given set of inputs dependably generates a set of outputs less useful. To say that there is in fact x-rays IS A religious assertion as we may discover/invent that x-rays are a combination of thousands of phenomena. Does that mean it is any less useful?

If we know so much about particles and what we know is nature, then why do we need a particle collider? We know there are neutrons and protons and electrons. They must be the end-all at least they were for sometime for many scientists. It could not possibly be that those were man-made models that embodied a collective of sub atomic particles(again more man made models) acting collectively to produce an effect of what we think of as a proton or neutron. How do you think we create equipment to look for things? Is the equipment naturally endowed to understand what an xray or particle is? You do live in a fantasy world.

Comment Re:scientists can be as bad as religion (Score 1) 99

Um, just because we do not know reality, does not mean that our models are not useful. Is that what I said?

I am seriously attributing more value and wisdom to one Greek than the mass of human knowledge. I actually think that this one Greek is the grandfather of modern philosophy of which the scientific method sprung from.

Comment Re:scientists can be as bad as religion (Score 0) 99

Not sure if you are being sarcastic. Space-time fabric sounds like anthropomorphic fantasy. Have you touched a space-time fabric? How do you know it is real and not just a man-made model that is coincidental with nature? Is coincidence the same thing as reality? Sounds like religion. Does that mean it is any less useful? Nope.

Comment Re:scientists can be as bad asThe humilit religion (Score 1) 99

I was more commenting on the assertion about the collective sum of brilliant minds. My point was that they may be the most brilliant minds of what we "know" today. But it is entirely possible we have exhausted the models we have produced based on this current state knowledge. These minds might be fruitlessly spinning their wheels in the mud without some sort of breakthrough that throws away old assumptions and theories. But because they are brilliant means nothing is what I am saying.

I agree that science, or the scientific method, is quite humble.

I am also not sure of the assertion that knowledge only comes through trying out old knowledge. New knowledge that comes from old knowledge is probably a tweak of old knowledge to accommodate the hypothesis that broke the old conclusion. Also, all knowledge is not empirical if I interpret what you are saying directly. This may be more of an eeking out of knowledge than a fundamental shift in thinking. Were the theories of Einstein built on old knowledge?

Comment Re:scientists can be as bad as religion (Score 0) 99

And a group of scientists have never been wrong even if they work at the LHC? Right. I think a little humility is needed. Because their heads are big and full of nothing, as Socrates would say, they must be respected? Gimme a break. They could all be morons in the context of the next horizon in human understanding of nature. Sure, they have a great understanding of old theories and old math, but that does not mean in anyway that this knowledge translates into the next generations of knowledge.

Comment Re:scientists can be as bad as religion (Score -1) 99

Wow, someone that thinks they are sitting at the adult table because they have a quip of a poem and a youtube video.

There is a lot of religion in science. For instance, what is responsible for gravity? Last I heard, we still do not know. Is it any less of a powerful concept?

But if we want to talk about adults, how do we address Socrates assertion that the only wisdom is that we know nothing? This tells me that the knowledge coming out of science is nothing but anthropomorphic models of nature that are highly coincidental. Anyone that believes science knows anything is also not sitting at the adult table.

For one, the scientific method addresses Socrates question. Since you are so mature and represent your quality of knowledge with the 2 sources you site, how does science support Socrates assertion?

Comment Re:Physics (Score 2) 99

Maybe we haven't identified all the places to look in our limited understanding of nature. So, sure we have axed a few "known" anthropomorphic places, but maybe we don't know WTF anyway. Socrates would say that we know nothing and this is really a search for nothing. For instance, what if the effect we attribute to a particle is responsible when hundreds of particles interact in aggregate? Maybe this is all being handled, but one particle to rule them all seems like it is an idea out of fantasy.

Comment Oh gawd (Score 0) 99

I think a survey should be taken if we really believe that a Higgs particle exists. What if a Higgs effect is made up of hundreds of particles that when considered in whole look like Higgs? Because our anthropomorphic models predict the particle does not mean we will find it in nature. Gravity is a similar concept, but very useful despite not knowing what gravity is.

Comment I don't care if it is harmless (Score 4, Insightful) 130

If CarrierIQ is making money from studying my behaviors, then I want a cut or I want to uninstall their craptastic software. I should not be forced to consume software I do not want. If Android wants analytics, then build it into Android OS. My relationship is with my phone manufacturer and the OS manufacturer. I should be able to decide what other relationships I want. CarrierIQ can contact me if they think their software somehow adds value to my experience. Otherwise, do more testing.

Submission + - Google releases the source for Android 4.0 and 3.0 (google.com)

LWATCDR writes: Google is dropping not just the source code for Ice Cream Sandwich but also Honeycomb. I can hardly wait for Cyanogen to get to work on this. I wonder how it will run on my wife's GTab and my Evo 4G. I guess the worries about Google not releasing the source to Android can now be put to rest. Check out the announcement here https://groups.google.com/group/android-building/msg/c0e01b4619a1455a?pli=1

Submission + - Macroscopic wave–particle duality (archives-ouvertes.fr)

advid.net writes: A 'walking' drop on a liquid surface behave like a particle with wave properties: diffraction, interference patterns, vibration quantization.

First, in a vibrating container they put a liquid like silicon oil, vibrations are just bellow the Faraday instability threshold. Then a drop of the same liquid is dropped on the surface, but it does not coalesce, it bounces. And further bounces make a static wave pattern on the liquid surface just bellow the drop and its immediate neighborhood. As the spike grows, instability increases and the drop slides down the spike, and start moving horizontally.

Then they have a combo object drop+wave pattern moving at 1/10th the speed of wave in this liquid, straight. They call it a walker.

What is really amazing is that the wave pattern below the drop has some kind of memory: it has accumulated energy from several drop bounces. It can also make the drop see "forward", as the small wave pattern bounces back from nearby obstacles. So the drop is "aware" of its environment and "recall" the path it has followed.

Diffraction is observed and explained by the multiple reflexions the wave makes when the drop passes through a small hole, randomizing the wave pattern and the angle of the path afterward. Interference patterns observed are explained a la de Broglie: as the drop passes through one of the two holes, its associated wave passes through both, carrying forward the message of the second hole to the drop and changing the statistical repartition of the drop's path direction. One more stunning result: they are circling the drop by moving the container (Coriolis), then the associated wave adopts a discrete series of pattern, depending on the speed and radius. Very much like the energy quantization of electrons.
English (and French) abstract
A short article (French but it has photos and formulas)
Full thesis (French,10Mb)

Comment Re:It was part of his job, but... (Score 1) 267

Technically a company should not let you bring anything of yours that benefits the company or they are stupid. For one, most non-competes try to claim gray matter that has been imprinted with company proprietary information, but thankfully I get to keep that. Do not let people use their own resources at your company unless they are a contractor. And I am not sure about your assertion that because you did company work on your resource, that they cannot demand to inspect your computer. That seems pretty risky to a discovery, of course, of child pornography or have German authorities put a keylogger on your machine.

Slashdot Top Deals

Like punning, programming is a play on words.