Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Same in Germany for wallets (Score 1) 352

In Germany, wallet thieves often take the valuables and throw the wallet (with ID card and whatever else) in the nearest post box and it gets returned to its owner.

Saves the victim a load of hassle at least.

What hassle would that be? The hassle of changing the credit card numbers on the cards you got back which you should change anyway? The hassle of avoiding identity theft on the driver's license they don't need (because it doesn't have their picture)? The hassle (in the US) of getting a new social security number* on the card they returned to you?

I can't think of anything you should do differently if you were to get your wallet back, other than maybe reusing the wallet after you empty it.

* Good luck with that

Comment Re:The good news (Score 1) 384

...and this pretty much is true irregardless...

Oh no. Now you've gone and done it. Dude, irregardless is not a word. When you want to use it, the word you really want is regardless. The english nazis are going to strike any moment.

Here, let me help you out. When they post that this is not really a word, give them this story:

Once during the war of 1812, when the British were about to attack at the mouth of the Mississippi, the US navy discovered that they were going to be seriously out-numbered. In an attempt to even the odds, the Navy moved the guard ships that were stationed in lake Erie down to the Gulf. When they did this, they left the erie-guardless.

You can thank me later.

Comment Re:Or (Score 1) 1260

I'm reminded of a common textbook calculus problem. I can't remember the specifics, but it's something like integrating from 1 to infinity over 1/x^4 dx. (might be 3 instead of 4, can't remember) The end results is that you're calculating the finite area of an unbounded region. The region is x=1, y=0, the curve, and unbounded on the right. The curve approaches the x axis. The area ended up being a nice round number like 4.

Comment Re:Distributor caps and a strobe light (Score 1) 207

How is this so difficult?

I'll give you an example. I have a 97 dodge caravan minivan. Next time you get a chance, look at a chiltons or haines repair manual for this car. Look up the procedure for bleeding the brakes. The instructions talk about the normal procedure, then finish up by telling you to take it to the dealer where they hook it up to a $10,000 ABS computer that advances the pump. Then you take it home and bleed the brakes again. As an alternative, you can take the car out and slam on the brakes to advance the pump yourself. It would have been trivial to create a "jumper" procedure to make this happen yourself. But they intentionally left out this feature.

I'm waiting for the day when the gauge cluster in a car is replaced with an LCD display. When something in the car breaks, it tells you on the display exactly what's broken. Instead, we get "reserved" engine codes that only the dealer can read with their $50,000 code reader. I'll stop complaining about car repair when the manufacturers stop making cars that are intentionally hard or impossible to repair without expensive computers or kung-fu one-use tools. Don't even get me started on water pumps driven by the timing belt.

Comment Re:New Complexities in Cars (Score 1) 207

Isn't necessary? Electronic Stability Control and Anti-lock Breaking Systems are hugely important to safe drive,

The car I learned to drive in (and later took to college with me) had no power steering, no power windows, no power locks, no on*star, no gps navigation doodad, no power brakes, no air bags, no ABS, no stability control, no air conditioning, no fuel injection, no engine computer, no catalytic converter, and no automatic transmission. It had 60hp. I had no cell phone. And somehow, I managed to live through this harrowing experience without having a single auto accident.

Comment Re:Atheist (Score 1) 583

There isn't, however, enough evidence to tell me that there is a being that created everything, could control everything but chooses not to, could see the future but chooses not to, etc.

Is it possible that things exist that you don't know about?

Here's the meaning of life: We're given free will. This place is a test to determine whether we'll give that free will back to God or use it for our own wants. If God were to intervene and control everything, we wouldn't have free will.

God doesn't choose not to see the future. The bible is full of (fulfilled and as-yet unfulfilled) prophecy.

Comment Re:Atheist (Score 1) 583

Things that "exist" are observable, and hence knowable, as part of the real world. If something is unknowable in principle, it doesn't exist, by definition.

Is it possible that there are things in this universe (and outside of it) that exist, yet are unknowable, or even haven't been discovered yet?

Comment Re:Atheist (Score 1) 583

I'm a chrsitian and found your arguments interesting.

We haven't found the hand of god measurably influencing the lives of faithful [people who believe in God], but if anything could influence the course of events profoundly and cover his tracks, it would be god.

I'd like to point out that the Bible is full of historical accounts of God intervening directly in human history in ways that were obvious to everyone. Unfortunately for us, they're all in ancient times. And many non-christians of course question the truth of everything in the bible (in spite of a 100% prophecy success rate).

God doesn't intervene in such overt ways now for a number of reasons. But stay tuned. If we are indeed living in the end times as most christians believe, God will shortly be forced to intervene in a war against Israel in order to prevent a defenseless Israel from being crushed. We're not sure exactly how it's supposed to happen, but it is supposed to be spectacular, resulting in the death of (iirc) 7/8 of the people in the invading armies.

Comment Re:Atheist (Score 1) 583

Nonsense! Rejecting superstition on the grounds that there is no scientific evidence is not blind faith, it is purely logical.

Before we discovered...say... other galaxies. Did they not exist anyway? There was up until that point no scientific evidence that they or anything like them existed. Did they *poof* into existence when we suddenly found evidence? Or did they exist throughout the entirety of our ignorance?

What's more close-minded, assuming that everything you know is all that exists, or that there are possibilities in the universe (and outside of it) that are more amazing than your mind could comprehend?

Comment Re:Next up on slashdot: (Score 1) 1027

I'm not familiar with the guy in question, and maybe he really is a nut, however...

That is actually the closest I have seen to a sensible response to this. Slashdot needs a way of marking stories "flamebait".

Follow the links throught to Robert Sungenis's site. He is a complete nut case. He is a creationist,

So am I. Although I suspect the actual story of creation is not entirely understood by christians and completely misunderstood by non-christians.

probably anti-semitic,

I don't understand antisemitism. There's a lot of christians (Mel Gibson comes to mind) who seem to hate jews, but claim to be followers of christ, who was a jew... I don't get it.

conspiracy theorist.

This one is politically charged. Are you claiming that anyone who suggests an alternate story to the official government story is somehow insane? What if the alternate story is right and the government is lying? Do you believe everything your government tells you? Anyone who has taken and understood physics 101 can see that something was seriously wrong with the official story of the building 7 collapse. And where's the plane wreckage in PA and at the pentagon? How does a 757 fit through a 16ft diameter hole and not leave the wings outside the building? I'm not sure what really happened on 9/11. But I'm convinced that the government story is a (laughably poor) lie.

Now the bit about how the moon landings were faked... I've examined their evidence. And what it looks like to me is that a lot of the photos were doctored, like a 70s version of photoshop, which is what I think they're latching on to. But I seriously doubt the landings were faked.

And JFK? Government lying.

It's our responsibility to not take "official stories" as fact without examining the evidence ourselves. Critical thinking is important and necessary.

The "news alert" links on the front page of one of his sites include one to a site that claims that the Vatican has been infiltrated by "satanic cults".

This is entirely possible. Do you have proof one way or the other? What if I told you that in the book of revelations in the bible, it describes a one-world religion that will be forced on everyone (including atheists) to go along with the one-world government, and the description for that one-world religion perfectly fits (what will likely be the remnants of) the roman catholic church? Is this really that impossible? The pope already seems to be abandoning some christian values while embracing ecumenism. And if pedophiles can get into the church, why not satanists? Maybe the word "satanist" is too sensational and it's really something more subtle. There seems to be a lot of "luciferian" religious teaching around these days disguised as the new age movement or "many ways to get to God". Maybe this is what he's talking about?

Why is this even worth discussing?

Because some of it may actually be true, and because we're not sheep?

Comment Re:I am not surprised. (Score 1) 1027

If you believe that somehow your deity is not affected by the laws of formal logic, but simultaneously believe in science, which is based on the faith (for it is faith) that underlying all things is a universal set of rules which can be expressed using math, you are believing things which cannot simultaneously be. You are then forced to train yourself in doublethink -- and people do that: they terrify me. Basically forcing yourself to be schizophrenic is not a sane attitude. That is "being religious".

God is a super-dimensional being. That is, God operates outside of our space-time while still having access to it. This is why he's everywhere and always. And eternity makes a lot more sense in that context. It also allows for God to not be affected by formal logic or science or the laws of physics. Yet in this world, we're bound by all these things. This world, these laws, this universe, they're God's creation. And because of that, he has complete control over all of it.

In my opinion, this is what non-christians who practice the religion of science* are missing. They think all that there is and all that can be stops at the edge of our known universe, and anything that goes beyond our universe, or even their understanding of our universe is simply impossible. Tell me again who's narrow-minded?

With God, all things are possible.

* To me, science is the study of God's creation. And there's nothing wrong with that. I even have a science degree. However, it's important that we not allow science to become a religion and a replacement for God.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't hit the keys so hard, it hurts.

Working...