Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Science precludes God and demands evolution? (Score 3, Insightful) 479 479

everyone talking about science believes creationism is wrong because God hasn't been scientifically observed, falsely concluding that this disproves his existence rather than fails to demonstrate it experimentally.

And by "everyone" concluding that, you mean nobody.

Did the billions of galaxies out there fail to exist 1000 or 2000 years ago because we didn't have the technology or know-how to observe them? Because that is what Nye and this article imply. The unobserved does not exist.

No, what it means is that anyone who talked about billions of galaxies 1000 years ago, was talking out of their ass, and making up crazy shit. Nobody knew there were billions of galaxies nor had reason to suspect there were billions of galaxies. And if by amazing chance, someone back then said there are billions of galaxies, they were being either stupid or dishonest (or both). Even if they just happened to be correct, I guarantee that their arguments for saying that, were no less stupid and no less deceitful, than their neighbor who talked about the world being carried by Great A'Tuin.

Yes, a god could exist, but we have no reason to think it might, and no reason to think we know what it's like, or what its name is, or how many there are, or how big or fast or smart they are, whether or not they love or hate gays, etc. But mystics just pile the bullshit on top of bullshit, in an enormous pile, ignoring that even the first piece stunk. It's no less crazy than talking about unicorns, and saying it's wrong is no crazier than saying someone's ideas about the existence of unicorns is wrong.

Pick a card, any card, but don't say it out loud.

I know what card you picked. You picked the three of hearts.

Was I right? There's a 1/52 chance I was right, but a 52/52 chance that I was fucking lying. The truth is that I didn't have the faintest idea what card you would pick, and if you listen to my bullshit about how I know what cards people will pick, you are not on the path to learning anything, except maybe about how good I am at slinging bullshit. After all my bullshit, you still won't know anything more about cards or how to predict what card people will choose. It is empty of knowledge.

Comment: Re:It's not stealing. (Score 1) 408 408

It's not "how" it's "where". Copyright holders of movies want to sell at different prices in different countries.

Oh, I get that they want to do that. I want you to buy ten of my widgets instead of one of them. I want you to tell your friends that my widget is the awesomest. I want you to parade my widget around a bunch of rich people so they'll want a widget too.

But if you don't give a crap what I want, and simply hand me the money for a single widget and then you don't tell your friends or show it off to rich people, I'm just going to have to live with that damn money that you put into my hand. I might angrily stare at the wad of cash, resenting that we did business because life as a bum was just fine since I never had my unrealistic expectations crushed. I might talk shit about you, "danbob999 bought my widget! Waaaah!" But I'm the one people are going to be laughing at.

Comment: Re:Good luck with that. (Score 1) 408 408

She owns the exclusive rights to a basket of content in Canada.

I think maybe what's going on here, is that she thought she was buying the exclusive rights to sell baskets, not realizing that the seller had made the exact same with an American.

Bell needs to contact the seller and ask for their money back. Exclusivity was promised but not provided. If the seller doesn't issue refund, take 'em to court. Netflix would make a good witness for their case.

Comment: Interesting PR strategy, but will it work? (Score 1) 408 408

The problem: I work at K-Mart and some of the people who I thought would become my customers, are shopping smart. They're going to my competitor, S-Mart, who sells similar things for less money.

My solution: yell at the would-be customers, call them thieves. "It's not socially acceptable to drive over there."

There are two ways the public might react. One is "Cajun Hell is right, and so I am going to shop at K-Mart instead of stealing by buying from S-Mart." Unfortunately, the other one is "Cajun Hell is an entitled loon."

Which way do you think the public is going to take my announcement? Will it work, or should I try something slightly less fuckwitted?

Comment: dumb idea (Score 1) 258 258

..the possibility of malware infection of voters' computers.

You need to either be ok with that (i.e. botnet owners should have more votes than normal people, because the whole reason that people give their computers over to botnets, is that they want to personally have less power) or else you need to give up on the idea of online voting.

And since nobody sane is going to be ok with that (I think people will disagree with my above parenthesized assertion), then: give up on the idea online voting. By the time you "solve" the compromised-user-agent problem, you'll have lost 100% of the reason for online voting, as we see with the amusing idea of making people use multiple computers which are hopefully on competing botnets and therefore unable to reach enough consensus to vote the same way.

Just keep having people go to polling locations. Really, it's ok to do that.

Comment: Re: Pass because the price point is too high (Score 1) 80 80

Intel is lucky that Apple appears to have a barely concealed desire to kill the mac mini,

You could just as easily say "Gigabyte is lucky that Intel appears to have a barely concealed desire to kill the NUC."

I guess this is progress. People used to argue about which vendors offer the best values, but now they argue about which vendors hate themselves and their users to the least suicidal degree. Instead of "Apple sucks," it's now "Apple hates itself, second only to how much they hate you, the customer." Instead of "Intel's machines are a bit expensive compared to the OEMs who use the same Intel CPUs," it's "Intel sure is lucky that they aren't the most self-loathing computer builder out there," and so on.

I always knew psychology played a big role in branding, but now we're admitting it even to ourselves, while we buy their stuff. It just goes to show that whoever said "knowing is half the battle," was wrong.

Comment: Re:nonsense (Score 2) 532 532

Yes, there are too many market forces keeping the prices down. It's a race to the bottom. People, stop all this miserly shopping for the cheapest medical care! Sure, your tiny Wal-Care bills look attractive but have you considered that if you keep doing this, you're going to cut more mom'n'pop providers out unless they are also able to viciously cut costs?

We need to put Wal-Care (and other super-slim-margin health care providers) out of business, in order to protect the health care profession!

That does not compute.