Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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 Sony is really no better (Score 0) 547

As a PS3 owner, and I surprised that I have not yet seen the following counter-argument to all the MS hating, thus Sony loving. Sony has repeatedly demonstrated a complete and total indifference to the user experience. The PS3 is experience is a constant barrage of being forced to watch a long progress bar (and then another one) before you can do anything else. I know, I know, they've fixed that specific gripe in the 4, but I'm speaking to the culture within Sony. Sony customer support is one of the worst I've ever had to deal with. They care so much more about fighting against people who might try to get content without paying for it than they do about their paying customers, that they are willing to remove core features of the product that they sold you, keep your money. They also completely fail to see the problem with that. I see all these posts worried that MS will pull a bait and switch over this DRM scheme. I haven't noticed any comments recognizing that Sony is the father of the console bait and switch. I want to be clear that I'm not defending MS; their attitude is clearly not pro-consumer. However, I just want to be the one to point out that nothing I've seen here makes them any worse than Sony, and a consumer-hating product from MS is NOT a valid reason to buy a similar product from Sony. I for one haven't even turned my PS3 on since I built a gaming PC last Summer. I don't plan on buying any console this gen. Maybe I'm just getting old. Or maybe it's the case that neither company deserves consumer confidence anymore.

Comment Election and Voting Reforms. also, Thorium (Score 1) 694

Any small party should definitely support: * Election finance reform. * Alternative Vote Thorium Energy Policy: I'd like to see the Government focus on developing Thorium as an energy source. Liquid Florine Thorium Reactors have many benefits, and could provide all of our energy needs. Demand for Thorium would also make Rare Earth mining viable in the US (currently all done in China). If you mine Rare Earths here, you'd bring more high tech manufacturing here as well. Policy changes to enable and promote this course of action are fairly minimal. It's just hard to get politicians to give a damn.

Comment Re:Having a temper tantrum and... (Score 3, Insightful) 36

...I can't see such a thing taking off...

A lot of things Google does never take off. The point is that they make cool stuff even if there's little or no business case for it. I like that they are always showing the untapped potential of the ubiquitous tools we already have. I like that they make ways to make things work together, then share the tools for us all to use.

Comment Re:Hot, liquid fluorine is too corrosive (Score 5, Informative) 258

Prohibitive corrosion is a common misconception about this type of reactor. The U.S. built an experimental MSR in the 60's and ran it for 5 years. According to the results section of the wikipedia article about the experiment, the corrosion was negligible:

Comment Re:It's all tied together (Score 1) 550

I have to admit that the first time I read your description of God, I had no idea what you were talking about. I did not recognize it as a description of God, and for that I apologize. I just googled "existentiating definition" and came up with nothing, so all I can do is try to infer your meaning. It sounds like you are making the argument that existence cannot continue existing without something else causing it to exist. I do not see this as a self-evident truth, nor do I see any justification for it in what you wrote. Quite honestly, it comes across as completely insane to me. I'm getting confused just trying to read it. We can agree that there are things that exist. I do not know why you assert that without God, things that currently exist would instantly degrade to nothingness. That seems like a pretty big leap of logic to me. I just realized that I'm trying to debate religion on the internet, which I already knew to be completely pointless. No matter how far we go with this, you will continue obfuscate and make excuses for the preposterous assertions of religions. You may have the last word if it makes you more comfortable in your insanity. I'm done here.

Comment Re:It's all tied together (Score 1) 550

I find it ironic that your defense against my claims that your god doesn't exist is to call my depiction of your god a "straw man." Of coarse it's a straw man. We're talking about something that doesn't exist. Something that doesn't exist is almost the definition of a straw man.

Technically, a straw man argument is one based on a false representation of the opponent's claims. The straw man in the term "straw man argument" is an analogy of a manufactured image, an illusion, a figment, a lie, a false premise. I find it a bit too easy to apply the claim of "straw man argument" when the original discussion is about an actual straw man, a figment of humanity's collective imagination, in this case God. I get the sense that you have become comfortable using the term "straw man argument" as your default defense against any and all claims that God does not exist. It is easy for you to claim that any representation of god that you do not like is just a "straw man" because God is an amorphous concept open to broad interpretation.

I will also note that in your defense, you made no attempt to provide your own description of God. It would be predictable if your next move were to cop-out and say that God is beyond our feeble human understanding, and as such, you are are excused from providing a plausible description of him.

Comment Re:It's all tied together (Score 1) 550

Allow me to clarify the intent of my original "invisible man in the sky" comment. I did not mean to imply that any religious adult in the modern world would describe their god this way (though as a child, this is exactly the image of god I often had). I used this absurd description to illustrate how absurd the idea of a god is to me as an adult. Contradictions abound in the descriptions of what God is. As somebody pointed out above, the Bible does claim that god made us in his own image. It stands to reason then that goes does have an image, and that image is observable from some real place. We are also told that he is everywhere and in everything and invisible. We are told that Heaven and Hell are real places that people go when they die. As children we believe Heaven to be above the sky and Hell to be below the earth. These images are inescapable because people presumably believed this to be true at some point. Modern man knows there is nowhere left in either the ground nor the sky for such places to hide, so the religious mind has moved them to parallel universes, alternate planes, and other unobservable sanctuaries of the mind. We are told that he controls every detail of everything and that he is good and just and perfect. However, we observe a very imperfect world full of injustice and imperfections. The religious mind excuses these contradictions as "tests of faith." This concept makes absolutely no sense to me, and the more I think about it, the more contemptuous this conceptual God becomes. In summary, if you disagree with my deliberately absurd description of your God as an "invisible man in the sky," then by all means, present a physical description of him that is any less absurd. Hold on a moment, let me get my popcorn.... Okay, you may proceed.

Comment Re:Question for anyone. (Score 1) 62

If you can contain the mess to your under-garment, then you can salvage the day by making it to the restroom and discarding your under-garments. Otherwise, it's time to leave for the day, but not before grabbing some paper towels to place over the seat of your car. For your sake, I hope you don't use public transportation to get to work.

Slashdot Top Deals

We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"