Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Uh...it's still there, you know (Score 1) 255

If you do this, then you'll get a few valid links and tons of spam links.

I think that was his point, back in the day (lol) people weren't spamming so much so it was ok to allow anyone to post links without worrying about moderation. You would get a few spam links and tons (relatively) of valid links

Comment Re:Newsflash: Stupid people think color matters (Score 1) 511

"BTW this article fails to mention how race HELPED Obama in 2008. Close to 100% of black Americans voted for Obama, because he was making history as the first black president. So that's a +20% advantage right there.

TFA says less than 1% (waaaay off from +20%), which doesn't beat the 6%, so no. Also, it was 96-98% of african american voters that voted, not of all african american voters.

Comment Re:Pointless if there's no content (Score 1) 270

Haha no no I'm saying the internet is useless if you can only commercialize it. If some website can get shut down for stuff that their users put up (not the site operators...), who's going to make a site that users can upload anything? There was an infographic I saw last week that made the point succinctly: If someone shoplifts from or even just robs your store, then the government can shut down your store. Why would anyone want to open up a store anymore?

Comment Pointless if there's no content (Score 4, Interesting) 270

The other problem is that people might stop creating these great sites/services because you can't "just browse" to them or venture capitalists won't fund the startup. Anonymity and an underground internet is useless if all the cool stuff is just taken down (as opposed to blocked) or even worse, never created in the first place. For example, can we secretly get to megaupload now? What about it's competitors that have disabled file sharing?

Comment Re:U.S. is established on religion, so (Score 1) 900

Fine, I'll be more clear.

The idea that no proof is possible is trivially easy to disprove. If an all-powerful being exists, that being must have the power to prove it's own existence. No such proof exists, and therefore it becomes necessary to invent excuses for the all-powerful being.

When a religious person says no proof is possible, what they're really saying is that they have a pet list of these excuses.

When it becomes necessary to invent excuses and there's that pet list, how does that make it trivial to disprove that no proof is possible? I think it's more trivial to prove that proof is impossible. For example (here's my pet list):

  • invisibility
    all-knowing
    beyond time and space (so, undetectable)
    has a master plan that accommodates anything anyone can ever think or do, ever
    can make a rock so heavy, even he/she/it cannot lift it, and then lift it (contradict itself)
    unlimited everything, invincible, all weapons, unlimited ammo, all spells, unlimited mana, no clipping, super jump, unlimited 1-ups, rainbow yoshi, etc. (that's probably just my god)

As I typed earlier, too much of it (maybe all of it?) is cleverly built to require faith.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...