Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:really... (Score 1) 573

"no one claims it is the literal word of God"

Like most absolute statements, this is false. It might be that most Christians don't believe the Bible to be the literal word of God, but there is definitely a vocal sub group that do claim it is exactly that.

Okay, let me rephrase it: No True Christian believes that ;)

Comment Re:really... (Score 2) 573

I'm not sure why anyone thinks the Christian Bible is any different, a far as I'm aware the early church was inundated with testaments and apocalypses, prophets running around willy-nilly and whatnot, they just picked the ones they liked best.

Yes, but that is the official church story of the bible. It was written after the life of Jesus and assembled from many different sources, BY the Church a few centuries AD. The origin story of the bible is matter of history, no one claims it is the literal word of God or appeared through mysteries means.

Comment Re:Does Ada count as 'little known'? (Score 1) 426

So you can predict how long a push_back() call on a vector will take every time you call it?

As well or better than I can predict how long a malloc() call is going to take in C.

Btw, STL is the standard library of C++, not the language. You can use the language without using the standard library.

Comment Re:Unnecessary (Score 1) 569

If you wrote a sentence that could be parsed into something intelligible, I'd write a reply.

That would be impossible on this subject. Civil forfeiture is based on the idea that the state sues the money, ie.: "The state vs 1000 dollars in cash", not whoever held the money. There is no way to make that intelligible, and when expanding it to other areas the crazy just spreads. Thus if money is people, then you should be deporting illegally immigrated money.

Comment Re:Just a question (Score 2) 385

Foreign countries don't even agree on what to call each other let alone specific places. I know a little "Japanese" (Nihongo) and from what I understand no one from that country would refer to it as "Japan". It is "Nippon" or "Nihon", "Japan" from what I've heard is a really bad 1,500 year old Portuguese pronunciation of a Chinese word referring to the island chain off of China's coast. I think this is far from an isolated situation, anyone know other languages similar craziness?

Germany vs Deutschland vs Tyskland... All the same place but named after different tribes living there 2000 years ago plus some language drift.

Also pretty much all major cities in Europe that doesn't have super easy names have different names in every single neighbouring language.

Comment Re:The reason for these laws (Score 1) 716

The usual defense I hear for the laws is that they don't like neoi-nazis and prefer to keep the neo-nazi propaganda illegal.

The relevant paragraphs restrict a lot more than Nazi propaganda. And, sure, as long as you accept the German dogma that those laws are compatible with democracy and free speech, that they simply represent a different and possibly better choice, people are happy. Suggest that current German law is in anything other than a model of democracy and they get mean.

America is a bad example since you have as many if not more extreme right wingers than Germnay.

Based on what? Given that extreme right wingers can't even legally voice their opinions in Germany, how would you even know? Keep in mind that the hotbed of neo-Nazis in Germany is the former East Germany, a part of the country where any right wing tendencies used to be harshly punished.

It is not illegal for them to be extreme right wing, just holocaust denial and use of nazi symbols outside historical contexts. They do have over-ground political organization and demonstrations. The main thing keeping them somewhat underground is not the law, it is left-wingers trying to kill them. If there is a neo-nazi demonstration of 10,000, 50,000 anti-nazis show up to kick their ass, and the police ends up spending more resources protecting them and oppressing them as you seem to have the impresion they do.

Comment Re:The Unicode Consortium (Score 1) 264

Have you ever heard of any committee anywhere voluntarily disbanding?

Yes.. Most people in inefficient commitees do not want to be there (might be part of the reason they don't work). Now dismantling it is much harder. I have seriously seen motions to have commitees dismantled proposed by the commitees and then rejected by the assemblies or boards that made them.

Comment Re:Betteridge's law of headlines says ... no (Score 1) 264

And yes, that means the 'standard' is gender and race neutral. People might make assumptions; deal with it. It's better than doing 'this is a smiley, and this is a female smiley'.

This is exactly what we would expect a man to say.

How can you tell the gender of the generic smiley? You are the sexist person if you assume it is male. It has no male markers.

Comment Re:The reason for these laws (Score 1) 716

Like is a strong word.

From long time and first hand experience, I can assure you: Germans "like" these restrictions: if you suggest that they are wrong and counterproductive, most Germans will strongly disagree and tell you how wonderful and democratic they are. (Then, usually some anti-American tu quoque will follow.)

You are probably being arrogant when suggesting it, thereby trigging a hostile reaction. I am not german but live in Germany. The usual defense I hear for the laws is that they don't like neoi-nazis and prefer to keep the neo-nazi propaganda illegal. That we don't have as many neo-nazis in places where their propaganda is legal, is in an interesting point to them, but America is a bad example since you have as many if not more extreme right wingers than Germnay.

Comment Re:The reason for these laws (Score 1) 716

The reason Germany has these laws is as a form of oppression. After WW2, the Allies wanted Germany to join their side against the USSR, but they needed to make sure the Nazis didn't rise again. This oppressive speech law, and others, were the way that was accomplished. It is a clear attempt to oppress the country's freedom of self-determination.

It was quite reasonable for the victors of WWII to impose temporary restrictions on free speech, given Germany's history. And in the short term, those restrictions were effective. Such restrictions weren't particularly burdensome either, since Germans never had enjoyed free speech rights before. The post-WWII restrictions by the allies were still liberal by historical German standards.

Today, Germany is largely its own master. It could easily abolish these restrictions on free speech if it wanted to. They are retained because Germans like such restrictions, not because anybody is forcing them to.

Like is a strong word. It is more that no one wants to be "soft on nazis", and they still have neo-nazis.

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.

Working...