Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:It was FICTION, sheesh! (Score 1) 248

There is a difference between a rare snowfall causing chaos and the chaos of an entire winter of record level snowfalls. I just love how the true believers are perfectly OK with calling a theory that is completely unfalsifiable "scientific". It is clear from that article, which was published in 2000, that the scientist proponents of AGW being quoted were saying that global warming would mean that Britain would get little to no snow for the indefinite future, so little snow that what little did fall would cause chaos.

Comment Re:It was FICTION, sheesh! (Score 1) 248

No, it did not strip the statement of context. The actual original quote, from an article titled "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past", was "Children just aren't going to know what snow is." The entire article, from the year 2000, quotes various authorities who all agree that milder winters are here to stay while explaining the consequences of those milder winters. And even if we take your quote as what he meant, he was completely wrong. Snow has not become a rare event for British children.

Comment Re:really... (Score 2) 617

There are many errors in your post which are beyond a discussion on the Internet. It is worth noting that the New Testament is the best documented ancient document we currently possess. Other documents of similar antiquity have a greater gap between their time of original writing and the currently oldest existing xopy of them. There are other factors involved which indicate that your knowledge of the methods of identifying the accuracy of ancient documents is limited.

Comment Re:really... (Score 2) 617

Perhaps, I chose the words poorly. Both Mormons and Muslims claim that their Scripture are merely copies of documents which came from heaven. Christians do not claim that those who wrote the Bible were copying from documents they received from heaven.
There are those who claim that those who wrote the Bible were merely copying words dictated to them by God. They are a minority.

Comment Re: Old testament (Score 2) 617

Um, no. No portion of the Old Testament was an oral tradition at the time of Jesus. As a matter of fact, the New Testament tells us that Jesus read from the book of Isaiah. There are manuscripts which are copies of various Old Testament books which still exist today which were written before Jesus.

Comment Re:really... (Score 5, Insightful) 617

Primarily because the Christian Church has never claimed that the Christian Bible was received already written and merely transcribed. The claim has always been that various men, at various times, actually wrote the contents of the Bible. The closest it comes to claiming the "received already written", is the tablets containing the Ten Commandments which Moses received from God, and then promptly shattered. We are told that the stone tablets he presented to the Israelites were carved by Moses, but these were merely quoted/paraphrased as part of other documents which were written and later included in the Bible.

Comment Re:Safest it's ever been (Score 1) 82

There is an interesting disconnect in that article. At the beginning of it, it talks about a drop in the total number of hives from the 1940s to "today" (2012, it amounts to a 50% drop). Then it talks about the fact that we appear to be losing 33% of our hives over each winter. How can that be if there was only a 50% drop total from the 1940s to now?

The answer being that beekeepers replace the majority (if not all) of those lost hives each summer. If you want to track this you need to look at how many hives we lose year to year, not from September to May. I want to know how many fewer hives there were last May, not how many fewer than last September.

Comment Re: Vietnam (Score 2) 282

I was not sure where to put this, so I chose here. All of the problems in Vietnam resulted from the fact that the decision had been made to fight the Soviet Union in a series of proxy wars designed to cost them more than they could afford. That decision in itself was a good one, the dangers of fighting the Soviet Union directly were too great to risk. The problem was that the decision makers in Washington did not fight in Vietnam with the intention of winning that engagement. They decided to continue that proxy war indefinitely. If they had fought Vietnam with the intention of winning, it would likely have been over in 1968 or sooner. This strategy was complicated by their belief that they could control what information about the war came out (causing them to think they could lie about what was going on and not get caught).

Comment Re:Also, who does not separate drive control? (Score 1) 192

But he is not trying to prevent people with physical access to the car from messing with it. He is suggesting that we should prevent people WITHOUT physical access to the car from being able to hack it. The only way to solve the problem of people with physical access to the car being able to hack it is to either not put computer chips in the car, or make those chips completely read only (which has its own problems).

Comment Re:Not just wearables but the basic cell phone too (Score 1) 202

People who buy a Swiss watch are not buying it to tell the time. They are buying it as a subtle way of telling people that they are rich enough to afford spending money on something just for appearance. Of course "wearables" are taking some of the air out of that market, a significant percentage (probably the majority) of the people buying "wearables" are doing so for the same reason.

Comment Re:Great Economy? (Score 1) 293

No, I have experience working with small businesses which were unable to compete because they could not afford to pay someone to fill out the paperwork necessary to comply with regulations. It costs money to comply with regulations...even when those regulations only insist that a company follow practices it would have followed any way because once there are regulations you have to DOCUMENT that you have followed them.

As to anti competitive practices those that are not a result of government regulation or only possible in the presence of government regulation, will be fixed by a free market in due time.
Of course there is another mistake you make, since you think that government regulation is by definition a good thing, you believe that those who wish to see government regulations minimized want to see all government regulations and laws eliminated.

Somehow you seem to think that people are evil when they run private corporations and good when they work for government bureaucracies.

Comment Re:Great Economy? (Score 1) 293

Your example countries have MUCH smaller populations AND I am not convinced that they truly are less corrupt. Perhaps it is just the value of corrupting the government is less.

More importantly, you and I disagree on one basic point. You believe that regulations allow small companies to compete with large companies. I believe that it is regulations which allow large companies to suppress competition from small companies. In addition, you believe that the words "law" and "regulation" are interchangeable, which allows you to suggest that those who want limited government regulation are anarchists.

"Bond reflected that good Americans were fine people and that most of them seemed to come from Texas." - Ian Fleming, "Casino Royale"