Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Serves them right (Score 5, Informative) 578

It reminds me of an interesting passage from "That Hideous Strength". I loved it, but it's by C.S.Lewis and is not-at-all-subtly Christian, which I'm sure would offend a lot of slashdot readers.

“But I don’t see how one’s going to start a newspaper stunt without being political. Is it Left or Right papers that are going to print all this rot?”

“Both, honey, both,” said Miss Hardcastle. “Don’t you understand anything? Isn’t it absolutely essential to keep a fierce Left and a fierce Right, both on their toes and terrified of the other? That’s how things get done. Any opposition to the N.I.C.E. is represented as a Left racket in the Right papers and a Right racket in the Left papers. If it’s properly done, you get each side outbidding the other in support of us–to refute the enemy slanders. Of course we’re non-political. The real power always is.”

“I don’t believe you can do that,” said Mark. “Not with the papers that are read by educated people.”

“Why you fool, it’s the educated reader that can be gulled. All our difficulty comes from the others. When did you meet a workman who believes in the papers? He takes it for granted that they’re all propaganda and skips the leading articles. He buys his paper for the football results and the little paragraphs about girls falling out of windows and corpses found in Mayfair Flats. He is our problem. We need to recondition him. But the educated public, the people who read the highbrow weeklies, don’t need reconditioning. They are all right already. They’ll believe anything.”

I often think about especially that last bit when reading slashdot. Of course, later on in the story it says "Miss Hardcastle apparently overestimated the resistance of the working class to propaganda." (or something to that effect).

Comment Re:Religions are philosophies (Score 1) 862

I have to disagree. Those labels change from family to family and even person to person depending on their personal beliefs, their church, sect and priest/pastor/rabbi ..... Unless you are talking about absolute fundamentalists. The truth is a person's religion gives you a possible look into a person's values but it will not be accurate enough to rely on.

To say that a religious label doesn't necessarily tell you much about a person is a far cry from calling it "the most arbitrary label by which people divide themselves". Assuming that by "most arbitrary", Dawkins means "least reasonable", I have to ask what other labels people use to divide themselves and how they compare in "arbitrary-ness". Is it more reasonable to label people by skin color or ethnicity? Or even nationality? As an American Christian, I *might* reasonably expect to have more values in common with, say, a French Christian than an American atheist.

Comment Re:Dawkin's is a piss poor social scientist (Score 1, Interesting) 862

He should stick to something he KNOWS about - like biology.

His other claims are largely bias - uninformed by fact or context.

There were protests about the film in Libya. How does his "theocracy" argument even apply to a country that was a secular state - more like Cuba? Iran, with a religious institution at the head of government, saw no such unrest.

Dawkins is a bigot. He unfortunately uses his impressive scientific and academic credentials to bolster the audience for his bigotry, and conflate the domains of his expertise to support his prejudice.

I don't know if I'd go as far as saying he's a bigot, but I think you make some valid points. Dawkins has made a name for himself by attacking religion, so he isn't likely to stop. I tend to agree with you, though. Anything "bad" done by religious people is presented as evidence of religion being bad in general - whether or not non-religious people do the same thing (e.g. rioting). But of course anything "good" done by religious people doesn't count in favor of religion unless NO secular person would have done the same thing.

Comment Re:Oh - FRACKING (Score 1) 259

Well, how strong is the correlation? FTA:

Frohlich analyzed 67 earthquakes recorded between November 2009 and September 2011 in a 43.5-mile (70 kilometers) grid covering northern Texas' Barnett Shale formation. He found that all 24 of the earthquakes with the most reliably located epicenters originated within 2 miles (3.2 km) of one or more injection wells for wastewater disposal.

So, how much of the 43 mile grid is within 2 miles of an injection well? If it's near 36%(24/67) this proves nothing, right?

Do earthquakes cause frakking? I don't know, maybe "imminent earthquake sites" are likely to be good frakking sites.

Comment "Science wins over creationism" (Score 1) 302

And that's about as far as most posters read, I'll bet, before posting their "look how stupid religious people are" rants. Creationists are not all stupid. You might think they're wrong, but people can be very intelligent and wrong at the same time. Archaeopteryx and eohippus are oft cited examples of evolution, but there is some doubt today about their accuracy. Heck, the scientists COMPLIED with half of the request. The eohippus to horse scenario is inaccurate and should be removed! However, they let the Archaeopteryx stand even though it might not really represent a transition between dinosaurs and birds. "Science wins"? Maybe Korean educators should be embarrassed that creationists had to point out the scientific flaws in their textbooks. BTW, my kids' science textbooks had the same examples.

Comment Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point. (Score 1) 570

Think about it, we are going from tech geeks and designers wanting these, to gun fans, which there are a lot of. Also, the venn diagram of the two groups isn't close to overlapping, so the tech is going to spread, and fast.

Where do you live that these groups don't overlap much?

My thoughts exactly. What tech geek doesn't like to blow stuff up and shoot things?

Comment Re:education stopped war (Score 1) 707

before WW2 most people could barely read or not read at all and the only job they could get was working on a farm. serving in the military and getting some war booty was more exciting. back in those days graduating high school was a major achievement.

now in the first world the vast majority of people know how to read, have a high school education and a lot have higher education degrees. why would these people want to join the army, crawl through the mud and be shot at or blown up? for minimum wage salary?

this chart indicates literacy hasn't changed that much in the 1900s, and this article suggests it's gotten worse among military applicants. The statistics are based on people who were not allowed to enlist due to lack of basic reading skills. You need to read a lot of notices, manuals, written orders, etc in the military. Believe it or not, some people (I believe most) join because they want to *serve*, not because it's the best they can do financially.

I am not a veteran, but I know many and I respect them and it bothers me when they are characterized as being stupid or greedy, when in my experience they are intelligent and generous.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...