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! ×

Submission + - Hawking: No 'theory of everything' (

Flash Modin writes: In a Scientific American essay based on their new book "A Grand Design", Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are now claiming physicists may never find a theory of everything. Instead, they propose a "family of interconnected theories" might emerge, with each describing a certain reality under specific conditions. The claim is a reversal for Hawking, who claimed in 1980 that there would be a unified theory by the turn of the century.

Comment Re:So many billions wasted for nothing (Score 1) 277

A case-in-point on this is the new "Making Work Pay" tax credit."

Why do we need Tax Credits based entirely on income? Well, its not based entirely on income. People with anuity/pension income do not recieve this credit.

The game is revealed. Rather than hit retired people with a new tax aimed directly at them, they instead give a credit to everyone else but them.

Tax credits should not even exist. They are wholly dishonest/disingenuous.

Comment Re:Tell me again why... (Score 1) 721

Now you're making assumptions. Where in my post did I claim to be a fundamentalist Christian?

Not all Christians are fundamentalists, not all people who are offended by fallacious anti-religious arguments are Christians. Fallacy #2.

You also repeated your first fallacy, ad hominem, because you attacked my character rather than the argument. It doesn't matter if I'm Aristotle or Mickey Mouse, it's the argument that matters.

Fallacy #3: Straw man, you tried to defend your use of fallacious logic by pointing out the absurdities of my (assumed) religion, thus framing the argument around irrelevant circumstances.

Fallacy #4: Fallacy of emotion - your hyperbolized, irrelevant satire was a cheap emotional appeal to atheists.

Way to be an ideal example of how NOT to construct a logical argument. Perhaps if you weren't so quick to judge and too impatient to think you may find some merit in religion. I'm all for religious debate, but when name calling and other silly fallacies are invoked it ceases to be an argument and becomes a dispute. Disputes are unproductive and achieve little other than spite. Logical arguments enhance the minds of those involved and sometimes conclude with a consensus. When no consensus is reached, at least there is an increased understanding.

Comment Re:Privitization (Score 1) 681

Who would you prefer to manage these roads, people who have no vested interest in the roads (public officials who get paid regardless) or private individuals whose livelihood depends on providing quality service?

Who would you prefer to manage the roads, people who have a vested interest in the roads (public officials who will get voted out of office when they fail) or private corporations who are answerable only to their shareholders?

I'm not meaning for this to be a "fixed that for you," simply another point of view (and a lesson in manipulative language). Private organizations can and will mess things up and provide crap for service just as often as governments do. I certainly won't argue that current road construction projects are devoid of greed and corruption between the private companies and local leaders (it's a *big* problem where I live), but some services simply don't translate well into privatization. There is nothing wrong with a community of people deciding "hey, let's have some decent roads going to everybody's homes and businesses" and following through with it. Historically speaking, infrastructure has been a hallmark of most civilizations. Where you have roads, you have trade, which with few exceptions benefits both parties involved.

The biggest issue with your argument - people paying for what they use - doesn't take into account the tremendous interdependency people have on each other. Simply because you don't directly use a resource doesn't mean people you depend on don't as well.

Comment Re:But (Score -1, Troll) 423

The iPhone killer thing is only in the summary, not in the articles and especially not from Verizon or Google. So your comment is worthless. When companies dub something the "X killer", you can probably bet it's not. When users start to do it, it's because the product probably is or comes close to.

Comment Harassing or Annoying the Defendant (Score 2, Insightful) 160

"The question is not whether the court approves of the plaintiff's litigation tactics, but whether the plaintiff acted for the purpose of harassing or annoying the defendant."... "Plaintiffs have doggedly pursued their copyright infringement claim, but I find no evidence of undue vexatiousness or ill motive on their part."

Hello! That's exactly what they are doing. Chasing after other family members not a party to the action and trying over and over to find the existence some magical external drive.

Summary sucks as usual but I think NYCL got a bit of the shaft on this one.

Keep up the good work Ray.

Comment Everything...including news images... (Score 0) 512

Do you really think news images are unaltered? EVERY news picture is altered. It was the case when I worked with film, and it's the case with everyone today working with digital realm. No photo is perfect, and photographers regularly alter exposure - in film using dodge/burn (yes, those are actual actions, not just funny names for photoshop widgets) to change the appearance of subjects, make forgrounds standout, bring details out of shadows, suppress (or enhance) unflattering areas, limit the tonal range for repro, and on and on.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Probably the best operating system in the world is the [operating system] made for the PDP-11 by Bell Laboratories." - Ted Nelson, October 1977