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!

Comments

top

Sci-Fi Authors and Scientists Predict an Optimistic Future

Karmashock I don't think they're associated... (108 comments)

I don't think we're pessimistic because they wrote of dark futures. I think we're pessimistic because we see our society rotting and see no way to cut the rot out and rebuild.

3 hours ago
top

Court: Car Dealers Can't Stop Tesla From Selling In Massachusetts

Karmashock Re:Car Dealers should ask why they're being bypass (92 comments)

Same. Though assuming you were Musk and were putting some stores out there for people to look around... how would you structure it?

One thing that might be a reasonable compromise is if the Tesla franchise had to be exclusive. Consider fast food franchises... they're exclusive. You can't sell subway sandwiches and Quiznos sandwiches in the same restaurant.

What is more, the corporate office can set policy, set prices, etc. Do that and you can let dealerships sell the cars while at the same time controlling how it is done.

5 hours ago
top

Court: Car Dealers Can't Stop Tesla From Selling In Massachusetts

Karmashock Re:Car Dealers should ask why they're being bypass (92 comments)

I'd generally agree. Another issue is why we have so few car companies. We could have smaller car companies that make few cars and are perhaps regional brands. Look at restaurants or ISPs or whatever that only exist in one part of the country. We could have the same thing with cars. The dealerships make getting into the car making business more complicated. They can't directly sell their cars. They can't put an AD in the paper saying "this car, with these specs, at this price, to your door... call this number." And that's wrong.

If no one has to deal with the dealerships then I think they'll be more reasonable companies because they'll understand that if they're unreasonable they'll be bypassed.

7 hours ago
top

Court: Car Dealers Can't Stop Tesla From Selling In Massachusetts

Karmashock Car Dealers should ask why they're being bypassed (92 comments)

If they were offering Tesla what they wanted or needed maybe tesla wouldn't see a need to bypass them.

Tesla for example likes to have their dealerships in normal store fronts where they have ONE car in the middle of the store and a lot of information. They sort of look and feel like apple stores. Very minimalistic, hip, modern. If the dealerships were willing to do that then maybe Tesla wouldn't have needed to do this.

Tesla points out that new car companies in the US tend to fail and they blame the dealership system for this because they say they're invested in existing auto companies and brands.

For Tesla to be comfortable the existing dealerships would have to be willing to commit themselves to Tesla in the same way that Tesla's company run dealerships are committed to Tesla.

And even then... Tesla doesn't have to deal with the dealerships. That whole model of sales is obviously going to come under challenge from all the other car companies now that will all ask "why do we have to deal with you when Tesla can do what they want?"

Maybe Toyota or Ford will want to have their own stores. And the dealerships are going to have to justify themselves to those organizations.

8 hours ago
top

Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

Karmashock Re:illogical captain (855 comments)

I don't want to disagree with you because I don't know if you'll listen to me. Some people here have taken correction very poorly and all things being equal... I'd like to avoid the drama.

Let me just say that science and religion have very little in common IF you approach science scientifically. There are a lot of people that try to turn science into a belief system and their version of science which is not science is similar to religion. However, it is a perversion of science or a misunderstanding of science and not science itself.

Science does not ask you to believe anything. It merely asks you to gather empirical facts, reason them in testable ways, propose theories based on that, and then test those theories again using empirical testing.

I won't bother explaining how that differs from religion because that should be obvious... pointing out the difference is both tedious and a waste of my time. But you should see how they're not similar at all.

That said, the people that wrote this article for NPR want to turn science into a religion. And for that they must destroy science because science as itself is not a belief system. It is a process.

You can be a christian, a jew, a hindu, an atheist, a capitalist, a communist... and still be a scientist. Science takes no sides and cares nothing for these belief systems. You can be a hardcore party chinese communist or a died in the wool American capitalist and be equally scientific.

Why? Because science is spock-like. It doesn't care about your petty factional disputes between your primate social groups. None of it matters to science. The person writing that article for NPR wants science to take sides.

If science does that... it will destroy itself in the process. And the people advocating this either do not understand that or worse do not care because all that matters to them is winning some pathetic political fight.

And if you look around slashdot... you'll find many of their minions. People that pretend to advocate for science when really they just want to use science... to chain it... to enslave it... to pervert it... to whore it... to use it up... taint it... leave nothing left.

And I find that offensive. They must be repelled, disgraced, lampooned, thrown down, and rhetorically pushed up against a wall and shot. It is unacceptable.

They win and science dies. And for what? For a few months or a couple years of undeserved clout in political games until they've so tainted the scientists that misusing their names no longer even gathers support.

People must understand. Science is not a belief system. It is a process.

Its like baking a cake. A recipe for baking a cake is not a belief system. It is a recipe. Simply saying "but you believe you'll make a cake if you follow the recipe" is not sufficient to call it a belief system. You could as easily say that directions to the corner grosery store are also a belief system because I believe it will lead there. Never mind that I know it will lead there. Never mind that it can be tested. Never mind that science not only is willing to accept correction but challenges you to do it.

Religions, ideologies, and belief systems in general do not challenge you to disprove them. They tell you that "X is true" period and refuse to accept correction. Ask any belief system if they really want to get into a discussion about whether their core beliefs are valid or not. None of them are willing to have that discussion. They assume they're correct.

Do people that believe in freedom want to defend why slavery is wrong? Do people that believe in communism want to defend why that is right or wrong? Do people that believe in any given religion want to defend why their god is right or wrong about anything? Not really. They just assume it and in many cases will fight to the death to protect their belief system. But will they actually argue for it on a rational basis?

Nope.

And neither would science argue for itself if it were turned into a belief system. Science currently is very happy to defend itself on this basis. Science has no bias even about itself. Science is without shame. It is this "spock-like" quality that makes it trustworthy. Science won't lie to protect itself from audit or correction.

Turn science into a belief system and there will be an orthodoxy. A correct view... many that report on science for the media want to institute this... they say "don't give equal time to people that disagree with this or that." However, while science doesn't regard all views as equal, it doesn't have any problem with discussing opposing views. The idea that some views should be excluded is not a scientific but rather a political view. Some feel that if opposing and wrong views are discussed it will give those views weight amongst laymen. Therefore, to help laymen have a correct view those opposing views should be excluded.

However, that is not science. Science in its purest form is as happy to talk to someone that is completely wrong in all things as it is someone that is completely right. Neither one has precedence because the judgement as to whom is correct and whom is incorrect is not determined by anything beyond empirical fact. If you don't have your facts then you don't have your facts. Just that simple.

Attempts to call things science without facts are equally invalid. No evidence... no science. And many times people will say "but getting evidence is hard or impossible because of Y"... science cares nothing for that point. You either have an empirical basis for your position or you do not. That something is hard or impossible is not science's problem. The recipe for the cake requires pure unadulterated evidence. No substitutions permitted unless you want to call the resulting product something besides science. If you want to bake the science cake... you need the empirical. Period.

8 hours ago
top

Oculus Rift CEO Says Classrooms of the Future Will Be In VR Goggles

Karmashock Re:why? (179 comments)

I said as much in my first post. that said, I don't think the tech has no application at all and especially resent the notion that 3d printing is a fad. It isn't a fad anymore then the automobile was a fad.

VR has a place. Its just not in the class room.

yesterday
top

Oculus Rift CEO Says Classrooms of the Future Will Be In VR Goggles

Karmashock Re:why? (179 comments)

VR isn't a matrix spinal tap. Its a monitor pasted onto your face with head tracking technology to sync the image to your head position. Lets not get carried away.

yesterday
top

Oculus Rift CEO Says Classrooms of the Future Will Be In VR Goggles

Karmashock Re:why? (179 comments)

Sounds like a great way to not learn anything while having a mediocre time.

yesterday
top

Oculus Rift CEO Says Classrooms of the Future Will Be In VR Goggles

Karmashock Re:why? (179 comments)

They'll only exist as long as people use them. We're already seeing the copper lines get phased out. We're already seeing VoIP gain ascendancy over traditional phone infrastructure.

What does VoIP mean when the phone system doesn't exist anymore or is no longer relevant? Its just peer to peer voice conferencing.

yesterday
top

Oculus Rift CEO Says Classrooms of the Future Will Be In VR Goggles

Karmashock Re:why? (179 comments)

because we don't have enough porn...

yesterday
top

Oculus Rift CEO Says Classrooms of the Future Will Be In VR Goggles

Karmashock Re:why? (179 comments)

The phone won't exist for much longer. Its already mostly a computer at this point and has no need for a conventional phone network to communicate between handsets.

But I don't see what that has to do with VR in the class room and why we should go to the effort?

yesterday
top

Oculus Rift CEO Says Classrooms of the Future Will Be In VR Goggles

Karmashock Re:why? (179 comments)

They said the same thing about the auto-mobile... but that was just a fad along with those aero-planes. Horses for life.

yesterday
top

Oculus Rift CEO Says Classrooms of the Future Will Be In VR Goggles

Karmashock why? (179 comments)

Why does the classroom of the future need to be VR? I would think the typical computer monitor would be sufficient.

yesterday
top

Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

Karmashock Re:That is science. (855 comments)

Right, because I said a rock was a rock and you said a rock was a horse... we'd just be expressing different beliefs.

Never mind the rock is a fucking mineral and you're a fucking moron.

yesterday
top

Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

Karmashock Re:That is science. (855 comments)

I cited a reference source that was frankly beyond what I needed to provide since the scientific method can be assumed to be common knowledge amongst educated people.

if you're not educated then you really have no right to an opinion on this subject.

Since you ignored the reference source as well as the fact that you're arguing against common knowledge... I can only assume as I suspected that you are both determined to spread misinformation and unwilling to listen or learn on the issue. Thus rendering you little more then a parrot squawking nonsense.

I'd give you a cracker but I'm out of rat poison.

You can stop breathing any time.

yesterday
top

Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

Karmashock Re:That is science. (855 comments)

Sure, and if someone says a rock isn't a horse they're just proving that they have an ideology that holds that view.

Never mind that a rock isn't a horse and suggesting otherwise is a contradiction of objective fact.

Kindly stop breathing. You are wasting oxygen.

Scientific Method (wikipedia):
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

You're wrong. That doesn't annoy me. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. However, refusing to admit you're wrong when you've had every opportunity to correct your position and then refusing to admit it is immoral. You are intentionally perverting truth and contradicting known fact. You are therefore intentionally spreading misinformation.

It is this that offends me.

If you wish to continue to hold your position at the very least give some basis for you false opinion and a means by which you'd accept correction. Then someone that knows more then you might have a chance if they care to educate you.

If you don't even provide that you're spreading misinformation while jamming your fingers in your ears and singing. And that is not only immoral... its obnoxious.

What will it be?

Will you admit your error?

Will you simply keep your false statements to yourself?

Will you continue to spew your stupidity but give some means for people to help you?

Or will you do all the above while closing your mind to correction?

I am assuming the latter. People that say such profoundly ignorant things tend to be only of the last category. If that's all you are... then I repeat... stop breathing.

yesterday
top

Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

Karmashock Re:illogical captain (855 comments)

Except for this article was started by someone advocating for atheists to adopt religious/ideological/belief based philosophical models instead of maintaining their "spock-like" detachment.

In other words "IDEOLOGICAL" people feel threatened by systems of thought that are empirical and not aligned with primate social models.

That includes religious and non-religious ideologies. In this case, it was a guy on NPR talking about how people should take sides in science on ideological grounds.

2 days ago
top

Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

Karmashock Re:That is science. (855 comments)

No. It. Isn't.

Its a process. It is no more a belief system then is a recipe for baking a cake.

You sit down, mix flour, eggs, milk, butter... etc... pour into a pan... bake for so many minutes at such and such a temperature then test the cake for completion by seeing if crumbs will come off a toothpick.

That is how science works. Its a process. Not a belief system. You do certain things, in a certain order, checking empirical variables at given points to ensure previous steps were carried out correctly and then verify the end result.

That is not a belief system.

And here is where I say "end of argument"... only some fucking retard is going to say "oh you can't just do that." Except I can because we are talking about science and science is a defined concept. Anyone that doesn't understand that science is a process and not a belief system is ignorant. Period. If we're going to be spock-like then what would spock say to someone that was completely wrong? Possibly he'd say "that conclusion is in error"? Which is a fancy way of saying "wrong."

People that don't understand science really shouldn't comment on science. Comment on my little pony episodes or something equally obnoxious.

2 days ago
top

Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

Karmashock Re:That is science. (855 comments)

That's fine except for that isn't science. And what people think isn't really important to science. Science is not a democracy.

2 days ago
top

Technological Solution For Texting While Driving Struggles For Traction

Karmashock Re:A solution in search of a problem... (319 comments)

A policeman in Los Angeles killed a man by answering emails while driving.

He was not even charged with a crime for it because apparently by answering police department email it was all in the service of the badge.

In this context... they continue to go after people that might answer a text while driving whether people are even injured or not.

Don't get me wrong... you shouldn't answer texts while driving. But I am incensed that the police officer is not even put on trial for manslaughter or negligent homicide.

If the police need to answer email while driving, then either give them automated cars or require them to have two police officers in every car. Short of that... they should be paying attention to driving while driving. Until that is a rule, I can't take this whole topic seriously.

2 days ago

Submissions

Karmashock hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

Karmashock has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>