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 Re:Awesome Jedi Mind Trick (Score 1) 1258

All other religions fail to build a compounding, historically impactive, evidence for their truth. And I'm bold enough to say that that is why Christianity is the de facto true belief. I challenge you to explore the validity of all other religions on this planet with reason and skepticism, and I guarantee you will concede Christianity as the one and only truth.

Comment Analytical Thinking can Increase Religious Belief (Score 1) 1258

Funny, my belief in God is based on an analytical journey.

They've primed volunteers to perform analytical thinking, and then followed up with questions about their religious beliefs. I bet these results could be generalized. You could've substitute the topic of religious belief questions with anything else and I would've expected the same response (e.g. Do you believe in life on other planets?). If you're primed to think analytically, and then asked whether you believe in something without the chance to analyze it, why would you expect any other response than a rejection of blind belief (on average)?

E.g. Sort the following words alphabetically: Reason, Ponder, Analyze, Rationalize. Question: Do you believe in global warming?

What makes the study sweeter is that it primes the volunteers with some questions that show that their initial intuitive response is wrong! This casts doubt on what they would initially believe to be true, and then they follow up with questions regarding the convictions of their beliefs. Perhaps this study may also show that people don't really analyze or give deep philosophical thought to their beliefs?

Often, you shouldn't believe in something until you've had a chance to analyze it. A blind disbelief is as bad as a blind belief. However, on amoral topics, I'm sure we just trust someone else's popularized work and accept it to be true because it has no moral consequence on our lives (e.g. belief that up/down/charm/strange particles exist).

Comment Online Voting (Score 1) 147

What could possibly be more accessible than voting online? There are public avenues of doing this (library's, internet cafe's)... Seriously. As for security, we already do some very sensitive transactions online, and I'm sure all the tallied data is going to end up on some networked computer somewhere anyways even now... How about you create a youtube-esque election site that covers everyones agendas? Where the size of your bank account doesn't matter, because you reach to just as many people as the next guy, who's poorer than you...

Away with congressman and representatives! I want to be able to represent myself! Just let me vote for elections and on major policies online...

Obviously this requires some more planning and thinking to actually make it work.

Comment A bit of a Summary (Score 5, Interesting) 234

Unsurprisingly, most of the people here haven't read, or perhaps not really absorbed, what TFA discusses, and are jumping to quick and irrelevant conclusions.

The author explains that Survival is a good metric of Intelligence, and he uses humans as an example. One human can definitely kill one lion, bear, mosquito, single bacteria, etc. if equipped with his intelligently designed tools such as a gun, or a mosquito zapper, antibacterial soap. He uses these tools, intelligently, to kill one bear, and hence, the human is more intelligent. However, if you take 10 bears, then sure, they may be able to kill the 1 human, but that means they are less intelligent, and take more numbers.

He simulates intelligence this way, and he defines a simulation as any environment with applied constraints, and that may include the internet, legal system, your neighbourhood community, etc.

So here's what he says: A system, such as the health care or legal system, will not be shutdown by one person. In fact, it probably won't even be shutdown by 10 people, maybe 100. And hence, the system is vastly more intelligent than a human, intrinsically since we worked in numbers to evolve this system.

I think it's a very interesting way of looking at intelligence. Again, this is all based Mr. Barbalet's assumptions.

Comment $350? (Score 1) 78

$350 for components is right (according to what I spent). However, buying a digital projector may bite a $700+ (the cheapest kind) chunk out of your wallet. Total cost: $1,050+ (Computer not included)

A couple friends and I built a multi-touch for about $500 total (plus $50 for a computer that our campus was scrapping.) We used one of those old-fashioned overhead projectors to do our work (and to save money). Not the ideal solution, but still works!

Slashdot Top Deals

Not only is UNIX dead, it's starting to smell really bad. -- Rob Pike