Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Slashback: New E3, Archimedes Webcast, Dell Wildfires

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the yet-another-lap-close-call dept.

199

Slashback tonight brings some clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories including: a victory for evolution in Kansas, the Stardust Program launched, Lego Mindstorms goes live, continued backlash on the new E3, Archimedes gets a webcast, another Dell bursts into flame, and a possible RIAA silver bullet Read on for details.

A Victory for Evolution in Kansas. SatanicPuppy writes "Yesterday, elections in Kansas saw four of six pro-Creationism school board members replaced by pro-Evolution candidates in a one issue election. Interestingly, it didn't go by party lines; at least one of the conservative Republicans who supported Creationism failed to make it past their party primary. Ken Willard and John Bacon are the two remaining pro-Creationism incumbents."

Stardust Program Launched. lee1 writes "Anyone with an internet connection now has the the chance to find microscopic grains of dust from beyond the solar system. The project, called Stardust@home, is patterned on projects like SETI@home. But rather than exploiting idle processor time, it will ask volunteers to search through millions of microscope images on their computer screens, exploiting spare time in general as well as ego: 'People get very competitive,' explains the project director. The first volunteer to spot an actual interstellar dust grain will get to name it and will be listed as a co-author on any resulting research papers. The images come from a NASA project called Stardust, whose primary mission was to collect samples of dust from the tail of Comet Wild 2, but might also have captured some interstellar dust that could reveal the physics of the stars that produced it. To minimize false positives and to ensure that all the grains are found, each participant will go through an online training and testing process before starting their search. They will be scored on how well they distinguish real dust grain impacts from fakes."

Lego Mindstorms goes live. MicroBerto writes "As of August 1, 2006, the next generation of Lego Mindstorms is now available for sale in North America. Mindstorms NXT is a robotics toolset that allows you to build and program robots for various purposes. It combines the power of the Lego technic building system and an all new intuitive software environment powered by National Instruments LabVIEW."

Continued backlash on the new E3. Anonymous Howard writes "Angry Gamer reacts badly to the news of the Electronic Entertainment Expo's demise. They see it as a major blow for small game developers who are having enough of a hard time getting noticed by press and retailers as it is. From the article: 'This is a win only for the EAs, Sonys and IGNs of the world. Everyone else has to fend for themselves.' It seems like the days of smaller developers getting noticed by 'drive by traffic' at E3 are over." Relatedly The Escapist Lounge has an interview with the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences president, Joseph Olin, on what is actually happening to E3. As Joseph Olin responds: 'So it's going to take a couple of months until the world knows what the scope of E3 2007 will be, and how it will be structured. The opportunity to make material changes to improve it shouldn't be snap judgments. The rhetorical question I might pose is: "You know you have a problem. You know you need to make changes. How do you make changes and convey it and announce it, and to whom, and when?" There's never a good time. Whenever you make significant change, there's no way to introduce that change without detractors. The challenge is that without being able to announce the exact implementation of change it leaves that gray area for ignorance to fill the void.'"

Archimedes gets a webcast. jd writes "Some time ago, Slashdot covered the story of the rediscovery of several lost writings of Archimedes by means of X-Ray fluorescence. Well, they're still scanning the book and at 11pm GMT (4pm PDT) on August 4th will be putting on a live webcast as they scan and interpret pages not seen by human eyes for over a thousand years."

Another Dell bursts into flame. starwindsurfer writes "A Dell laptop's battery caught on fire in a company's IT department this week, burning a hole right through the casing. Nearby techs used fire extinguishers to put out the blaze. Employee Henrik took pictures to document the affair and uploaded them to the Toms Hardware message boards. From the writeup: 'The police department showed up. The entire lower floor was allowed to leave early and as we stood there in front of the building we simply couldn't resist... we jokingly called the engineer a terrorist as he was being asked a few questions by the friendly officer.'"

An RIAA silver bullet? Chris Fairman writes "TechDirt is running a story about how the RIAA seems to be dropping cases where the defense includes (or hinges on) an IP address as the means to identify the source of criminal activity. Essentially the defense argues that all an IP address can prove is who was paying for the net access at a particular time. Having a wide open WiFi router on your network seems to be currently the most effective means of getting the RIAA to drop all charges. Essentially the activity originating from one IP, only proves that illegal file sharing behavior is coming from one network, and not necessarily from any one specific computer or user. More importantly, it seems that the legal system is beginning to catch on to more complex technology concepts. Such concepts play a large part in how future legal cases are argued, and contribute ultimately to the foundation of complex technology legal precedents."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I believe in Evolution and God (2, Insightful)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836208)

I view Evolution as God's tool. The days in the Genesis account were days of God, and not days of man. It's said in other places in the bible that a day of God is longer than a day of man. Besides what is a day when the sun isn't even in existance? I envision God sculpting the species over billions of years by using Evolution as a tool. God gave a small account of how he created the universe, but its also eloquent. Science will change in the next 1000 years shattering our notion of the universe, but the Genesis account will never change.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (-1, Flamebait)

ytzombe (530215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836234)

OK there CrazyJim, you go enjoy your bible story and sit in the corner.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (4, Insightful)

JanneM (7445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836237)

Science will change in the next 1000 years shattering our notion of the universe, but the Genesis account will never change.

And that, in one sentence, summarizes the fatal flaw in using religion as a means of understanding the world.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15836295)

Oh God no!!! he believes in religion AND evolution!

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (0)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836311)

Yes folks, it's (drum roll please) Religilution!

Or Evolugion, whichever you prefer.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (4, Insightful)

anothy (83176) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836364)

no, it doesn't. it summarizes the fatal flaw in using religion to replace science. religion's a very useful tool for understanding some aspects of the world, including human nature and psychology, even if you don't believe it's a useful or true description of the metaphysical. it's just not a replacement for science, nor a good means for understanding, say, physical phenomenon. don't confuse arguments against using religion to teach science with arguments against religion in general.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836409)

"religion's a very useful tool for understanding some aspects of the world, including human nature and psychology,"

no.

religion is a very useful tool for observing some aspects of the world, including human nature and psychology.

it offers no understanding at all.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15836989)

I would argue that religion is a very useful tool for exploiting some aspects of the world, including human nature and psychology.

But one can also observe the responses of humanity to religion, and, through such obervations, gain some understanding. So it's a moot point.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (3, Informative)

nihaopaul (782885) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837218)

you are all wrong.

Religion is a very useful tool for controling the masses. (like tv reality shows and news groups (esp. but not limited to china))

it offers neither understanding or observation

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837482)

Religion was a method of explaining human nature and the forces of the universe before we had the capacity to find out for ourselves.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (4, Insightful)

Synonymous Bosch (957964) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836505)

Religion isn't intended to be a means of understanding the world - it's a means of understanding yourself and in turn, understanding God.

It's a shame most religions (or their followers) have lost sight of that point.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (3, Interesting)

c_forq (924234) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837228)

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis would disagree with you.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (-1, Troll)

gasmonso (929871) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836255)

CrazyJim, Genesis will never change because it's just a fairy tale. Come get yourself educated my friend. [religiousfreaks.com]

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836310)

That site isn't worth pimping so often, man. Give it up or make it better.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (0)

gasmonso (929871) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836344)

You're right! I need something awesome like JETRIS!!! That's a killers site man... seriously. Go commercial with that one! Or better yet, mind your own damn business :)

http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15836785)

It's kinda funny, but because I often find myself bored with the comments when I get this far down into it, I decided to make my own comparison. So I went to both sites, and truth be told, I spent far more time playing simple, blocky, ugly Jetris than struggling through the idiocy of your well-designed (I didn't waste enough time to bother investigating, but is that a template? are you using wordpress, or movable type? for shame) pool of hate-speech and one-sided, almost (approaching and maybe actually crossing the line; again, not enough research on my part) bigoted commentary.
The point is, content always wins over display in terms of awesomeness. One of the fundamentals I learned in comm. art was to make the message more attractive, but if the message is so ugly to begin with, then it simply can't be made beautiful.
And regarding minding your own damn business, maybe there's something you can learn from a famous Jesus parable that has nothing to do with god: worry about the sawdust in your brother's eye only after you've removed the plank from your own. Try minding your own damn business, instead of crusading against others who believe different than you.
[Posted Anonymously to cover my knowledge of artsy and bible things so my fellow nerds don't think less of me as a coder or atheist.]

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15836263)

Bravo! Though simple in concept, and easy to accept as a "why not" for either side as bridge. Though many people do not like it for some reason.

I often think that the universe is a giant game of dominoes(falling) combied with pool.

See you at the bottom of the mod.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15836272)

It's very convenient that religion can suddenly agree with science that would otherwise proove its beliefs wrong, all the while still clinging to other beliefs that are just as unreasonable, and will too eventually be proved wrong.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15836273)

And this inflexibility is a good thing?

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (0, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836297)

you do know that God didn't write the Bible?

God could not use evolution, because if it was guided, it wasn't evolution.

Just as a reminder, Evolution is a fact, and there no longer is a missing link.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (1)

SleepySheep (874767) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836442)

Uh... don't facts have to be supported by evidence? If evolution is "fact" then where is the evidence?

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15836746)

If evolution is "fact" then where is the evidence?

You don't think there's any evidence for evolution? How can it have wide acceptance amongst scientists without evidence? For fucks sake go and get a clue. Try reading some books or something. I hear the bible is a good yarn.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15836464)

Why would god not be considered just some other factor in whether or not they live or change?

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836501)

God could not use evolution, because if it was guided, it wasn't evolution.

Not provable, nor falsifiable, therefore a bullshit statement scientifically.

The concept that God has or had a hand in evolution is a metaphysical, philosophical, or theological idea. If you claim that science has an opinion on such, then you don't understand science.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (2, Interesting)

magetoo (875982) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837189)

God could not use evolution, because if it was guided, it wasn't evolution.
That's not quite right. You might very well have had some form of directed evolution. (The Christian god/some other god/the aliens/FSM altered/is altering genes gradually towards some goal, and here we are.)


And related to this, Darwin did not come up with the idea of evolution, that would already have been known. What he proposed was natural selection; the method that pushed evolution seemingly "forward".

But you're probably from the US, and they don't teach this kind of stuff there, right? ;-)

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837260)

Evolution is guided. As Darwin envisioned it evolution was guided by survival of the fittest, guiding towards efficiency. At the very least it is guided by physics and chemistry.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837429)

Guided? Don't you mean constrained? But that's hardly a constraint, because everything is constrained by physics. That's like saying that stars are constrained by having to exist within a universe.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (2, Insightful)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836321)

So, yes to evolution, and yes to the account of creation given in the first chapter of Genesis, and yes to the account of creation given in the second chapter of Genesis.

... um, mods, how is self-contradiction "interesting"? OK, well I suppose it's interesting in the sense that it's a very, very peculiar way to think. Or rather, I suppose, doublethink, since that is literally what it is.

Even the craziest sentence in this post --

Science will change in the next 1000 years shattering our notion of the universe, but the Genesis account will never change.

-- has some kind of rational meaning if you think about it in a sufficiently sideways fashion: e.g. "the Genesis accounts are unlikely to change in the next 1000 years, because people who are in the business of producing critical editions of historically important texts are going to want to preserve the text in a form as close as possible to its original". But just because it's possible to re-encode something in your head in such a way that it makes some kind of sense doesn't mean that it's a useful something for thinking with ... and that goes for creation myths, too, by the way.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (4, Insightful)

Teach (29386) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836758)

But just because it's possible to re-encode something in your head in such a way that it makes some kind of sense....

But there's no re-encoding necessary. The biblical account of creation only has a few crucial claims, IMO:

  • God existed before anything and created everything.
  • Things appeared in a certain order: the universe, later plants, later sea creatures & birds, then land creatures and finally mankind.
  • Men are a special act of creation, unique from animals in that they're in "God's own image."

So far, I've never learned any science that contradicts these fundamentals. Society at large used to think God created each variety of animal ex-nihilo; now the evolutionary process is commonly accepted, even by quite a lot of Christians. This "change" doesn't affect the above tenets.

This is my viewpoint, anyway, and based on what the OP said, it's his, too. I hate to add to the offtopic-ness, but I felt like clarifying.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (2, Insightful)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836802)

But there's no re-encoding necessary. The biblical account of creation only has a few crucial claims, IMO:

It must be very nice, just happening to be the person who knows which claims are crucial and which ones aren't.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (0, Flamebait)

PacMan (15605) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837107)

But there's no re-encoding necessary. The biblical account of creation only has a few crucial claims, IMO:

  • God existed before anything and created everything.
  • Things appeared in a certain order: the universe, later plants, later sea creatures & birds, then land creatures and finally mankind.
  • Men are a special act of creation, unique from animals in that they're in "God's own image."
So far, I've never learned any science that contradicts these fundamentals.

Then you havn't done much study in evolution, have you.

Birds are descended from land animals (dinosaurs) and thus had to appear *AFTER* land animals.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (2, Interesting)

Panaflex (13191) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837319)

And you appear to not have studied much religion - at least Genesis. The source material for much of Genesis goes back much further than the Bible and the Torah. Look up the Epic of Gilgamesh for instance.

Regardless - it is not so much of real interest that things were created in a certain order. Certainly our view of the Earth has radically changed in 2,000 years and will continue to change I am sure, as an example.

Classical studies often find that a timeline and factual accounts are far from reality - but are meant to convey the outcome, meaning, or possibly the causation (tropological study). The particular order and logic is mostly allegorical evidence and relation to the reader. As an aside - this is the point at which scientist balk much so.

but the Genesis account will never change....errrr (2, Insightful)

Maelwryth (982896) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836405)

New King James Bible
  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep, And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

New International Version
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morning-- the first day.

And thats just from two versions in english. Fairly similar, but changing.

Re:but the Genesis account will never change....er (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836483)

actually a good pastor will reference the original Greek|Hebrew|Latin text (and besides quite a few pastors will use only the King James|New King James for this very reason

Re:but the Genesis account will never change....er (1)

grogdamighty (884570) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836538)

No, that's one version in 1611 English and one in 20th century English. You'll notice that they say the same thing, just in the vernacular of the times.

Re:but the Genesis account will never change....er (1)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836627)

Actually, that is incorrect also, because the older king james version did NOT use the term *water* - they used "firmament" whose meaning has been changed to indicate water. The firmament was not actually water as we see it in a pool or out of our faucet, it was water in the form of frozen ice particulates surrounding the earth, helping to isolate the earth from the rest of the universe. Light, could only come through at the poles, due to the magnetic poles and radiation belts helping to form natural holes in this firmament. This is where a lot of people have gone in thinking that the Garden of Eden was actually under the icecap of Antarctica.

The stories of the flood, however they came about could also indicate that God caused the *firmament* to be pulled from the heavens, melting as it came to the Earth, causing the rains and the floods, changing forever the face of the Earth and the peoples who had lived, sheltered from the Suns radiation, much longer lifespans than we do today.

Re:but the Genesis account will never change....er (1)

Maelwryth (982896) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837036)

1611 version [jesus-is-lord.com]
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And the version I used.... [blueletterbible.org]
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep, And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

Same version, different times, still differences. Note the second one has been modernised. You could say that I shouldn't just copy and paste off the internet, but that would prove my point as well. Things change.

Klingon. Good luck. (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837078)

1:1 | Daq the tagh joH'a' { Note: After "
        joH'a'," the Hebrew ghajtaH the cha'
        letters "Aleph Tav" (the wa'Dich je
        last letters vo' the
1:1 Hebrew alphabet) as a grammatical marker. }
        created the chal je the tera'.
1:2 | DaH the tera' ghaHta' formless
          je empty. HurghtaHghach ghaHta'
        Daq the surface vo' the deep. joH'a'
          qa' ghaHta' hovering Dung the surface
          vo' the
1:2 bIQmey.
1:3 | joH'a' ja'ta', " chaw' pa' taH
          wov," je pa' ghaHta' wov.
1:4 | joH'a' leghta' the wov, je leghta'
          vetlh 'oH ghaHta' QaQ. joH'a' divided
        the wov vo' the HurghtaHghach.
1:5 | joH'a' ja' the wov " jaj," je
        the HurghtaHghach ghaH ja' " ram."
          pa' ghaHta' evening je pa' ghaHta'
          po, wa' jaj.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (2, Insightful)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836482)

More power to you, Jim. I have no problem with people of faith when they're actually using their brain. That, to me is real faith, not the pseudo faith of the fundamentalist. The kind of faith you seem to have is more of a creative mental act, much like imagination. Faith gets a bad name because of the many people who claim to have faith, when really it's a matter of being brainwashed by a dogma.

I was going to disagree with your contention that:

Science will change in the next 1000 years shattering our notion of the universe, but the Genesis account will never change.


but after a little thought I decided that you might be right, at least on a deeper level. At any rate, there's nothing I can point to to say you're wrong, to prove that the underlying message has changed thru interpretations. On a more superficial level, one could point out the history of various translations of the Bible. Anyway, I won't argue for the sake of argument. I'll just try to keep an open mind.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (2, Funny)

bruno.fatia (989391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836524)

I think God rather play in turns just like Civilization.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (1)

magetoo (875982) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837249)

Oh, you're Bahá'í [wikipedia.org] then?


(I was aiming for "Funny", in case anyone was wondering..)

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (3, Insightful)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836601)

Now stop and think a moment...

When the information was shared with man on how the universe and world was created, who among us could understand genetics, quantum physics, superstring theory and a host of things we still don't know about?

We understood the concept of god. We understood creating something. We knew simple numbers. We understood simple concepts for measuring time, days, seasons, etc...

If the story of creation were handed down today, I'm positive it would read differently. For one thing, we'd get a lot more technical information on how it happened. We'd also understand terms like genetic mutation, manipulation, millenia for time periods, etc...

For the longest time, I've thought about that story, and what it would sound like if it was given to us for the first time today. It's amazing to think that instead of a *rib bone* being used to create woman, it was actually sort of a proto-y chromosome component that was removed from man, and added to the same component on woman. Thus instead of an original XY for man and XX for woman, we originally had an X and Y with a half leg extending out the lower right quadrant. When that piece was removed from the original man, and combined with another to form the first XX chromosome, we changed - not only was there now woman, but a different form of man.

How would that have been explained to the people of that time? As far as I'm concerned, it couldn't have. Thus we have the stories of the bible written in the simplistic terms of the day, instead of the meticulous scientific detail we'd like today.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (2, Informative)

aditi (707829) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837348)

A technical note:

"... Thus instead of an original XY for man and XX for woman, we originally had an X and Y with a half leg extending out the lower right quadrant. When that piece was removed from the original man, and combined with another to form the first XX chromosome..."


The "Y" chromosome is also X-shaped - and then only when the cell is dividing. The chromosomes double themselves, coagulate, and are linked to their doubles in the "middle", giving them an X-shape. When the cell is going about its other functions, however, the chromosomes are pretty formless.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (1)

cmeans (81143) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836799)

Well, the Genesis account has probably changed countless number of times. One more more times per each translation. Every translation puts someone else's spin on it, deliberately or otherwise. It only goes to show a lack of understanding of the history of religous (at least Judeo Christian) documents.

This certainly doesn't mean that God/Jehovah/Allah doesn't exist...

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837364)

I would like to point out that the Hebrew version hasn't changed in at least about 1,000 years, and I think the Latin and Greek are at least 800 years and 900 years respectively. These versions are still available, the reasons translations change is because the vernacular changes (and one of the reasons that the Catholic Church didn't want the Bible translated).

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15837200)

How do you reconcile the fact that the order in which types of animals are created in Genesis disagree with the order in which evolution says they came around?

Note that there are different orders given in Genesis 1 and 2. This is often handled by claiming that Genesis 1 is chronological from God's point of view, while Genesis 2 focuses on Adam's experience and is not chronological. But that doesn't reconcile the order with evolution's claims.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15837205)

I can believe this and subscribe to this philosophy. I'm not trying to dumb down this in any way, but how exactly do you answer your 5 year old child when he or she asks you why the sky is blue. Do you say, "it is, because it is", "because god made it so", or do you try to explain how electromagnetic waves behave? Where I'm going with this is how do you dumb down an answer and have scientific detail in the answer? I don't think you can, and I believe this is what you might find in genesis.

Re:I believe in Evolution and God (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837383)

"Science will change in the next 1000 years shattering our notion of the universe".

Our understanding of science will be drastically different 100 years from now, just as todays science is drastically different from 100 or even 50 years ago.

Thats the point of science. In order to further understand something accepted conceptions of ideas need to be challenged and proven (either right or wrong). Science is not meant to be set in stone that would defeat its very purpose as it would not be able to accept new idea which lead to new discoveries and new technologies and greater understanding of life the universe, so on and so forth. If science was static it would be like religion. Science is the search for answers not the establishment and maintenance of them.

backslash is crap. Reply here if you agree. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15836213)

backslash is crap. Reply here if you agree.

Re:backslash is crap. Reply here if you agree. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15836319)

This is Slashback, jackass!

Somebody do me a favour and mod parent Troll.

Re:backslash is crap. Reply here if you agree. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15836544)

Dry and kinda pointless IMO. They would do better to let users submit Slashback stories. Good luck with this... I know you're gonna get modded into hell. (Hence my cowardice.)

Like eating regurgitated food. (0, Troll)

Jerk City Troll (661616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836491)

But without the great taste. Think about it: the Slashdot editors get paid (more ad exposures) for reposting comments (which were sorted out of hundreds by moderators in the viewing public for free) with some useless commentary tacked on. All in the same of extending the conversation on a few silly topics beyond the original submission. Ultimately, it means more income. It also appears to be a substitute for a steadily decreasing volume of worthwhile news [slashdot.org] . Yes, Blackslash sucks!

Re:Like eating regurgitated food. (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836569)

Well, at least this clears up the mystery as to why my dog likes backslash so much.

Re:Like eating regurgitated food. (1)

tknd (979052) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836592)

SlashBack is Slashdot's way of communicating: /^H

Re:Like eating regurgitated food. (2, Insightful)

Rolman (120909) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836638)

If you don't like the food, then don't eat it. Very simple fix.

There are some of us that weren't available in the original discussion and have something to say. So, if you already posted or read something about these topics before, then it's very simple for you not to click in the story and not to produce more ad impressions to the oh-so-greedy editors.

Just ignore them, that works quite better than complaining.

Re:backslash is crap. Reply here if you agree. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15836509)

it's total crap!! :(

Re:backslash is crap. Reply here if you agree. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15836603)

Slashback is dry and kinda pointless IMO. They would do better to let users submit Slashback stories. Good luck with this... I know you're gonna get modded into hell. (Hence my cowardice.)

I'm a little surprised by the RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15836216)

If they were SCO they'd claim that, by having an open WiFi router, the defendant was negligent and somehow owed double damages. I guess that, unlike SCO, they actually care if they continue to exist after they lose a case.

Thank God... (1)

posterlogo (943853) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836258)

...for the ability to reason! Go Kansas! (Until the next election that is...they've flipped their so-called standards virtually every 2 years).

Archimedes gets a webcast (1)

ChowRiit (939581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836260)

I hope they translate it before the webcast (at least provisionally), or it's going to be rather limited interest to most people...

Re:Archimedes gets a webcast (3, Funny)

spidkit (992102) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836316)

Fine...it'll be all Greek to them anyway.

RIAA (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836270)

Re: the RIAA "silver bullet"....are there any /. lawyers or legal students (no armchair lawyers please) who can weigh in on the effectiveness of it, and any potential limitations it might have due to state laws?

If this really is as big a solution as they are making it sound, then work should be done to ensure that the information gets distributed to the mainstream college students and high school students who are the main people at risk and who are the least prepared for legal problems both in knowledge and in ability to weather the results.

Re:RIAA (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15836355)

IANAL but I have followed the legal battles of the RIAA pretty closely the last six years. I was under the distinct impression that having an open WIFI was NO defense at all. I can't remember the exact legal document but years ago when this defense was concocted on /. everyone linked to some Ashcroft document that clearly stated that whoever pays for the internet connection is ultimately responsible for anything and everything that goes on with that connection. That is to say that leaving your WIFI connection wide open is something wreckless that you did and you should still be held accountable. This is much like if you had someone in your car and you were pulled over and the person in your car had a loaded handgun and a pound of cocaine. The cops wouldn't necessarily cart your ass to jail BUT you would get yelled at about how it was your car, everything in that car is technically your responsibility and if you were itching for arrest they probably could arrest you on that basis. Same thing with P2P over unsecure connections.
If the Feds come kicking in your door because they have found that hundreds of child porn (I know it's an extreme example) videos have been uploaded at that IP and your defense is that "well I don't know, it could be anybody really, I never set up my router" I think that you would be in some serious trouble. In that case you could hope to get off because it is criminal and reasonable doubt is your friend. With P2P it is entirely a CIVIL matter and thus rather then having reasonable doubt as your friend you have the high probability of guilt damning you at your court hearing.
However, things may have changed. Perhaps the issue has become so wide-spread and there is so much anger against the RIAA that the attitudes of those serving on Civil trial juries are hostile to the intentions of the RIAA. If they have decided that is the case then it is in their best interests to avoid any case where more then an IP address would be required before qualifying for your high probability of guilt. Nothing about the article /.'d says anything convincing one way or the other about it though.

Re:RIAA (1)

r1_97 (462992) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836371)

What he's saying is that w/ a wide open unsecured wireless router, anyone on the network can download a file using the same IP address. If true, then you can't prove which computer did the illegal download. They'd have to seize the computer with the illegal file on it.

Re:RIAA (5, Insightful)

Rophuine (946411) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836508)

One bit of FUD being spread around is the whole "They'll be able to prove it was you when they seize your computer" crap. I haven't seen it hit /. but I've certainly seen it around the place. This isn't a criminal matter. The police aren't going to be getting search warrants and raiding your place for MP3 sharing. If the RIAA turn up at your place and try to take your laptop, call the police and have them arrested for Unauthorised Entry and Attempted Theft. The best the RIAA can do is subpoena your stuff, at which point you are required by law to provide them with copies (or possibly access to the real thing) at an actual court hearing. They can also demand copies of records you have during disclosure, if it makes it to a hearing. At the end of the day, they are going to have to be satisfied with the access YOU give them, under the terms of a court order. While I'm not suggesting you should falsify evidence (which would be a serious crime), hard drives crash all the time. Who makes regular backups, really? Do you save and keep all the logs from your wireless router? The data doesn't need to be missing. If they subpoenaed me for a list of all the MP3s on my desktop, I would happily give it to them. I keep all my MP3s on my MP3 player, not my desktop. What about all the P2P software which has ever been installed on my laptop? I have an old laptop sitting downstairs running as a router. That's the laptop they mean, right? Ultimately, the infringement they're chasing you about, and the potential gain to them, is not worth the cost of a serious investigation. Especially not when it's weighed against the potential loss of actually losing a case and setting a precedent. I say: Fight the good fight. I never used to buy music; it was burned CDs for me. I was a poor high school student. Now that I work as an engineer, I buy CDs all the time (not from Sony anymore, though). If the RIAA had bent me over and spanked me as a student, though, I'd have to wonder why I should go legit now that I can. Ultimately, the RIAA is alienating today's P2Pers who would have been tomorrow's customers. They would have ended up buying their own music, CDs as gifts, gift vouchers, iPods... But once they've been grounded for a month and banned from the internet for three because their parents had to pay a settlement to the RIAA, FORGET IT. On that note, wouldn't it be nice if America could stage a large-scale music boycott over this issue?

But why do _really_ buy now? (1)

maddogsparky (202296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837081)

I never used to buy music; it was burned CDs for me. I was a poor high school student. Now that I work as an engineer, I buy CDs all the time...



A college student doesn't have a whole lot to loose (a few thousand dollars of debt is just another semester of classes). A professional who has a reputation to worry about and likely has dollars in the bank has a bit more on the line. Not trying to knock down the poster of the parent, but one has to wonder: even though a lot of posters spout similar lines to the parent, what kind of habits would they have now if the RIAA never started taking action? After all, free beer is free beer.


Re:RIAA (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837193)

One bit of FUD being spread around is the whole "They'll be able to prove it was you when they seize your computer" crap. I haven't seen it hit /. but I've certainly seen it around the place. This isn't a criminal matter. The police aren't going to be getting search warrants and raiding your place for MP3 sharing. If the RIAA turn up at your place and try to take your laptop, call the police and have them arrested for Unauthorised Entry and Attempted Theft. The best the RIAA can do is subpoena your stuff...

So what about the more likely case, that they turn up with a police officer and a search warrant?

Two Points (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15837370)

1) There's such a thing as "civil seizure" and there are also ways they can do "surprise discovery" via Federal Marshals in an ex parte process if a judge is willing to sign off on that. So far, I think it's usually the BSA, not the RIAA, that employs those tactics.

2) Their sources of IPs are, at best, "electronic hearsay" -- that is, in many cases, they have *NO* way to prove that:
* They weren't lied to by some random computer on the internet.
* They know who was actually sharing some file.

The first of those two points is particularly poigniant. It would be quite easy to frame someone if you put your mind to it. Especially when they're getting their data on who is sharing what from random file sharing computers on the internet. It's also quite easy to fake their reports by changing a few IPs, so you could just as easily generate a report saying that, say, whitehouse.gov was really the one pirating that. While part of this can, SFAIK, be solved by an affadavit saying that "I personally ran this program to find pirates and I swear that it really did give me this report of this IP as being one of the sharers." if you subpoena all the information on the programming of the computer they got this information from, you might very well uncover a fatal flaw in their evidence gathering process.

Of course, IANAL, this is not legal advice, and you should have a lawyer and an expert review the evidence against you. Hopefully, they'll be able to point out the flaws and scare away their goons. Honestly, though, I'm guessing that they're dropping the cases based on which lawyers seem to understand technology, because they don't want any long or expensive legal fights... after all, what if they weren't able to recoup attourney's fees, and ended up losing money prosecuting the case?

As for boycotts, I'm boycotting Sony still, and there are a host of reasons for that. In fact, it makes me smile every time I see a mention of Sony on something I've pirated :D And even if they trace this, all they'll find is a wide open wireless system. Who am I? I'm Anonymous Coward, that's who :P

Wifi Routers not needed. (3, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836277)

Its even more common then most, since most every laptop ( and many desktops ) come with wifi built in.

At least the courts are starting to come to their senses ( I hope ). But how does one prove you had open wifi during the time they think you did something wrong? I know personally i have mine wide open for my neighbors, but that still doesnt PROVE it.... ( i sit here now with my macmini with internet sharing going on the airport )

Re:Wifi Routers not needed. (2, Insightful)

conteXXt (249905) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836320)

Well that's actually a great question for the legal types (you know them they preface everything with IANAL).

If it were a criminal case (as I understand US law) you SHOULDN'T have to prove it was someone else, just introduce the reasonable doubt that it was actually you. A dynamically assigned address and an open wifi introduce a lot of doubt.

It's up to them to prove you did it.
This unfortunately isn't a criminal case (yet!).

Re:Wifi Routers not needed. (1)

GizmoToy (450886) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836421)

Reasonable doubt is not the required weight of evidence in a civil matter. In civil matters, only the less strict "preponderance of evidence" is required. Therefore, the RIAA only has to show that it was likely you, not you beyond a reasonable doubt.

Re:Wifi Routers not needed. (2, Insightful)

hawridger (929560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836490)

"Likely" is not the precise standard of proof that the RIAA would be required to show. Actually, a preponderance of evidence requires the plaintiff to prove that it was more probable that not that the defendant is liable. By pointing to a wide-open network IP address, the RIAA will face difficulty in proving by a preponderence that a particular user of that network was the infringer. As the plaintiff, the RIAA has both the burden of production and persuasion. Only after both of those are met is the defendant required to offer evidence to counter the RIAA's burden. I think the significance of this "silver bullet" is that courts will decreasingly recognize an IP address as meeting these burdens. An IP address, without more, is merely a piece to the evidentiary inquiry. Therefore, defendants in RIAA cases would be able to successfully move for summary judgments if the RIAA has nothing more to offer as identifying evidence.

Tubes (4, Funny)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836332)

this comment [techdirt.com] on the page about the RIAA is a must read for those with a sense of humor. I would just copy the text, but that might be copyright infringment.

Re:Tubes (1)

sepluv (641107) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836968)

Aah, but according to the RIAA linking to copyrighted material (that's like when you give directions to lost souls in the tubes) is copyright infringement, you pirate, you.

Your one and only friend when it comes to RIAA... (1)

Omeger (939765) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836399)

PeerGuardian

some more years wont hurt... (0)

nazsco (695026) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836447)

> on August 4th will be putting on a live webcast as
> they scan and interpret pages not seen by human
> eyes for over a thousand years."

And putting up a _real video_ webcast they intend to do what exactly? keep it away from human eyes for some more time?

New E3 (1)

Rolman (120909) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836452)

I mentioned it a couple times [slashdot.org] since last year [slashdot.org] so I don't need to repeat myself, but I agree with that view about the small developers and media receiving a big blow out of this new E3.

A more intimate event will weed out most of the people that didn't have any business there, but it will also pull out of the radar all those really innovative games that don't come from the big players, and the media interested in them.

It certainly looks bad, but now look at Hollywood, there's no place for small indie films in the big events, theme parks and whatnot, but there are independent film events and the media covers them because there are GOOD MOVIES to be seen there.

What's needed is to fortify and separate the indie game development and let them have their own events. The market for indie gaming will not disappear as long as there are people interested in innovation or are not willing to buy crapware just because it's licensed by the NFL/NBA/FIFA/etc.

Let's face it. We, the people interested in real games represent a very small percentage of the market, but I hope things like the Xbox Live Arcade and the Wii Virtual Console will become a place to showcase those games without having small developers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to E3 just to be "the leftovers".

What I feel the most about is the small media outlets. No more bloggers or small time writers to keep the big guys from becoming even worse than they are today [slashdot.org] .

Re:New E3 (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836533)

At least we can hope that with a more low key e3, we'll see a return of the booth babes. Relegating them to the private suites for "private demos" was pretty cool for the lucky few, but not fair to the rest of the poor stiffs. =)

PAX (3, Interesting)

Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836474)

'This is a win only for the EAs, Sonys and IGNs of the world. Everyone else has to fend for themselves.' It seems like the days of smaller developers getting noticed by 'drive by traffic' at E3 are over.

I guess there's always the Penny Arcade Expo...

Joseph Olin (1)

BackOrder (592581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836480)

Reading the article doesn't help that much. It's a bunch of nothing and it resumes to a PR stunt. Did he said anything relevant? I don't think so. He's rather trying to say "cool down, we're under control" whereas many are just unhappy about how E3 turns out.
 
Besides, how can we trust companies to gather together and have a consensus to everyone's advantage? What benefits big corporations such as EA games will gain to let small developer in? There are so many questions and ignorance may fill the void but stupidity will let other bad guys fill the void in their way too.

Re:Joseph Olin (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836556)

Well, one way I see this working out is for say Sony or MS or Nintendo to each have their own show for their own consoles. There'd be an exhibition hall for developers to show their stuff. Think of it as the console equivalent of Mac World.

Oh, I left out Phantom. Well, I guess they can have their own show, too. =)

Root of All Evil? (4, Interesting)

Rolman (120909) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836543)

Last year, Richard Dawkins [richarddawkins.com] , of The Selfish Gene fame, made a documentary about religion called "Root of All Evil?" [channel4.com] , where he defines faith as "the process of non-thinking" that can lead to even the worst human condition, like murderous thinking when the fundamentalism make people hate and kill each other. Just like what's happening in Israel right now.

One of the most interesting things about it is that he tries to talk with several religious leaders about evolution, and they sistematically avoid any rational discussion and undeniable evidence with the same stupid arguments, equivalent to "my book says this and therefore, it must be true".

He brings forth the question "why can't schools just teach science in SCIENCE class?"

Quite controversial, I recommend it very much.

Re:Root of All Evil? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15836904)

Ah, the non-thinking goes both ways.

For example, taking the definitions of both science and evolution I found in text books such as "Life, and introduction to biology" by Drs. George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck (I've been told they were somewhat important evolutionists) I not only found that it is impossible for evolution to be scientific at all, but in over thirty years of asking, I have yet to hear a defense of evolution as science that is logically defensible.

It is the same definition of science that makes creationism not science.

Further, Richard Dawkins' claim that religion leads to murder (true, for some religions, but for all?) is just as applicable to some followers of evolution (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, to give a few). It is for good reason that such an argument is called a logical fallacy.

Re:Root of All Evil? (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837056)

"why can't schools just teach science in SCIENCE class?"

For the same reason that multipart math questions now conclude with:

"How does that make you feel?"

KFG

Re:Root of All Evil? (1, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837112)

Dawkins also describes the Christian god Yahweh as "the most evil fictional character ever."

Think about it. This creature will ultimately resurrect, then heave into Hell almost every person who ever lived, where they will lie in unending agony. Very few get into Heaven, after all. The Bible tells us so.

Now torturing almost everyone who ever lived, for ever and ever, isn't the definition of worst possible being, I don't know what is.

No need to argue or debate whether God is real or not -- just conclude that, either way, it is evil beyond Hitler and Stalin and Ghengis Kahn and John Wayne Gacy put together. Anthropologists estimate 75 billion people have lived, more or less, so far. All but 144,000 of them are going to be excruciatingly tortured for ever and ever. Or a few million. Or even a few billion. Googol to the googolplex years, and the remaining scores of billions are still just getting started.

That's a perfect and omnibenevolent god for ya!

Watch it online (1)

Noksagt (69097) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837129)

A site that has a lot of embedded videos of material which are in the public domain happens to have the first episode of Root of All Evil? [jonhs.net] . (Thouch, since it is recent, I do wonder the copyright status of this.)

Re:Root of All Evil? (3, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837146)

Last year, Richard Dawkins, of The Selfish Gene fame, made a documentary about religion called "Root of All Evil?", where he defines faith as "the process of non-thinking" that can lead to even the worst human condition, like murderous thinking when the fundamentalism make people hate and kill each other. Just like what's happening in Israel right now.

In any group, whether religous or not, you will find nutjobs trying to usurp the group for their own purposes.

The issues with Jews and Arabs would exist even if both groups were the same religon. Anti-arab and anti-semetic feelings exist among just as many non-religous groups.

Groups like the KKK didn't claim Blacks and other non-whites followed the wrong God. They made-up their own secular reasons to justify what they already wanted to do.

Religon is just another scapegoat for bad people that want to do bad things.

One of the most interesting things about it is that he tries to talk with several religious leaders about evolution, and they sistematically avoid any rational discussion and undeniable evidence with the same stupid arguments, equivalent to "my book says this and therefore, it must be true".

The Catholic Church recognizes and supports "The Theory of Evolution", and has repeated condemed "The Hypothesis of Intelligent Design".

Re:Root of All Evil? (1)

MadEE (784327) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837312)

Last year, Richard Dawkins, of The Selfish Gene fame, made a documentary about religion called "Root of All Evil?", where he defines faith as "the process of non-thinking" that can lead to even the worst human condition, like murderous thinking when the fundamentalism make people hate and kill each other. Just like what's happening in Israel right now.
Faith, Paranoia, Nationalism, etc can all do this, for that matter anything that would be more apt to draw an emotional response rather then a rational one, religion is not anything special in this regard.

One of the most interesting things about it is that he tries to talk with several religious leaders about evolution, and they sistematically avoid any rational discussion and undeniable evidence with the same stupid arguments, equivalent to "my book says this and therefore, it must be true".
This doesn't surprise me in the least; those that don't buy the most probable scientific answer to the problem are probably not following the scientific method to derive their answer. While they are certainly those that attempt to prove their beliefs with science (and typically look the fool) the vast majority of those who hold the belief know what they believe goes against what the consensus of science and debating them on science really is sort of foolish on both parties parts.

He brings forth the question "why can't schools just teach science in SCIENCE class?"
Personally I think that it's almost a benefit to the students that it is there. One of the most fundamental things of a science class should instill the student is the ability for them to determine what good science (or logic for that matter) is and likewise what bad science is. If a child cannot see on their own that ID is not science then no knowledge, no equations, no nothing will help this person in the field or in life.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15837428)

What religion was responsible for Mao and Stalin's crimes? Was it not, in part, atheistic "murderous thinking"? Why is it not atheism which promotes such thoughts, given that those two have killed more than any religious person ever, especially when many of the deaths resulted from their suppression of religion. Especially when they used some of Dawkins' rationale to justify their suppression of religion?

And what of the religious people who have no problem with evolution, science, and teaching both in the classroom? Is it not easy to vilify any group if you ignore any good they've done while magnifying all the evil others have done in the name of that group? But if you don't believe that, why was it so easy for me to vilify atheists just now, when a great many of them are decent, peaceful folks?

Dawkins is nothing more than the atheist's Ann Coulter, IMHO, and I disagree with both of them.

IP Address (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15836562)

Could they use similar laws to traffic infringement ? They know your car went through a red light (by camera) but not who was driving. Either you pay the fine or tell them who did.

Re:IP Address (1)

Bishop (4500) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837061)

The RIAA could not use the same rules as traffic cameras. Because a car is a big physical thing then it is likely that a car is driven by the owner, or someone who has the owner's permission. Either that or the car was stolen. Wireless is quite different. The RIAA might go for the negligent angle and claim that the user should have used WEP/WPA etc.

Asploding Dells (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836590)

Unfortunately, the photos aren't visible any longer, although one gets a good idea of the extent of the damage from the description.

Also interesting was a link posted in the comments to the letters section [theinquirer.net] of the inquirer regarding why Li-on batteries might catastrophically fail.

So it's come to Kansas now (2, Insightful)

Guuge (719028) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836683)

There may be something of a backlash against the new direction of conservative politics in this country. Is this a sign of things to come? Is there hope that the near future will hold less politicization of religion? The optimist in me hopes that people are fed up with politicians exploiting their religious beliefs in these nonsensical confrontations with science. The fact that a pro-evolution Republican is even possible in Kansas gives me hope.

Free WiFi in Perth (1)

cheese-cube (910830) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836846)

On the topic of unsecured WiFi in the "RIAA silver bullet" article if you ever frequent the CBD in Perth, Western Australia, be sure to check out the coffee shop called Gelare on William Street near the train station. They have an un-secured AP there with an SSID of "gdfw". It sure beats going to the net cafe Netcomm around the corner where the wireless costs about $15AUD for five minutes or some other absurd amount.

-1 Off-Topic here I come! And to think I finally got my karma from bad to positive.

Stardust@Home (1)

jcarkeys (925469) | more than 8 years ago | (#15836945)

Am I the only one that this is going insanely slow for? Pages take somewhere around 1 minute to load, and I have 1.5 mbps DSL and no load on the network. Is this an isolated incident? Regardless, I must say that this excites me. It's fun when I see a track then have to wait to see if it was a calibration test or not, secretly praying that I actually find a particle and get published.

Re:Stardust@Home (1)

ahecht (567934) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837074)

From their front page it looks like a good old fashoned slashdotting:

Latest News: Aug. 2, 2006 - 5:45 PM PDT
We are currently experiencing heavy traffic from all of our enthusiastic volunteers and the site is running quite slowly. We are working to add server capacity, so things should speed up over the next several hours. Thanks as always for your patience.

its a great day for kansas (1)

CompMD (522020) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837040)

Today the voters here in Kansas showed the world that they aren't a bunch of redneck idiots. What people should find most impressive is that Western (read: very rural) Kansas voters elected a moderate, pro-science candidate. As someone who has lived in Kansas for five years, I was shocked to hear that. If I'm not mistaken, that Bacon guy represents the district including Johnson County, which is populated mostly by nouveau riche neocons that honestly think they are upper class.

I think the people of this state are tired of being laughed at and are finally starting to move for change.

Kansas is a great place for innovations in science and engineering, it needs to stay that way.

So disappointed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15837057)

I thought Archimedes Plutonium was getting a webcast. :(

Straight to the classroom... (5, Insightful)

Otto-Marrakech (989922) | more than 8 years ago | (#15837058)

From watching Ken Miller's recent lecture at Case Western University (whole 2hour talk can be seen here [youtube.com] ), one point really stands out for me, that for 'Intelligent Design' a supposedly non-religious packaging of creationism to be accepted, it must go through a simple process that evolution also went through;

Novel Scientific Claim > Research > Peer Review > Scientific Concensus > Classroom & Textbook

Intelligent Design proponents are doing the follow;

Intelligent Design "Theory" > Classroom & Textbook

If Intelligent Design supporters are so confident in their research and findings which supposedly vindicate the literal truth of the Bible, why do they skip the most important process in getting their theory accepted?

Meanwhile we have Ken Ham already building a 25 million dollar creation science museum [youtube.com] .

fuckEr (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15837180)

disturbing. If yo0 AMERICA) might be watershed eesay, since we made the Need to scream that
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?