Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Curious (Score 1) 283

Which is why the Catholic church created the notion of limbo and various levels of hell, making fine distinctions of it all. The Bible however can be interpreted as not having a literal hell as well and just a separation from God. With all religions the fundamental core of the religions and cultural add-ons get muddled together and become hard to separate over time.

Comment Re:But they're not white, so it's OK (Score 1) 283

There are more references to violence in the Old Testamant than in the Koran. I think Mohammed would not be proud of the extremists when they act contrary to what he actually said. The most common theme in the Koran is mercy. The caliphates allowed Christians and Jews to live in their lands, albeit with extra taxes. Remember that Christians during ante-bellum South defended the most brutal form of slavery using the Bible, probably the biggest religious schism in America came from protestant churches dividing over the issue of slavery.

Comment Re:But they're not white, so it's OK (Score 1) 283

What about Christian fundamentalists who do kill? Terrorists or just misguided? There's an equivalence when the mainstream of both religions is against terrorism, except that with Christians there is acknowledgement that the violent acts are just some fringe wackso, but with Muslims there's so much propaganda out there that eveyr Muslim is a potential terrorist.

Comment Re:Uh... let me think about it (Score 1) 542

No one can really predict traffic well, anywhere. Traffic reports are almost useless (they never tell you about slowdowns on a freeway if there's always a slowdown at that location, but will warn you ominously about an accident on a road where the traffic is still running smoothly). The Google Maps and such aren't much better. They don't give you the key information about whether or not I need to take a much longer route or not. And it doesn't know your preferences, most out of town people would seemingly prefer I-95/90 to dealing with Boston surface streets, but the GPS assumes you're a hardened veteran of local roads.

I go down freeway CA-101, every day, off peak hours. There is really no other route that doesn't add an extra half hour to an hour. There are times when the route shows as black (ie, worst possible color) when it is faster to just put up with one long traffic jams, and there are times when the route is black when it is better to take the slow detour. There are times when the color is red or orange when it can suddenly come to a complete stop and now it's too late to detour. They don't show what the traffic will be like 20 to 30 minutes in the future when I am at that location and it's too late to try something different. So I never use them, what's the point of being told "you're screwed!" every time you look at it?

Comment Re:Uh... let me think about it (Score 1) 542

But I figure out routes before hand. Google maps is nearly useless at giving directions since it insists on using current traffic conditions. It also doesn't know my likes and dislikes, I don't want to take a shorter route if it means a really narrow road or negotiating the mess of an urban core, I don't want high overpasses or bridges, I don't want to get anywhere near the "maze" in Oakland, etc. I don't want the optimal route necessarily.

I need to orient myself first anyway, relying on the GPS without knowing anything about the route is short sighted. So, go up freeway 1, turn to freeway 2, get off at exit 3, follow John Doe road until I hit the cross street I want. It's easy, the way to get lost is if traffic is very heavy and you don't get over in time (I am not aggressive in traffic, and GPS tends to assume I can merge a lane in only a few seconds). GPS helps if I miss where I am going sometimes, but it sometimes makes things more aggravating if all I need to do is turn myself around. I may be slower but more comfortable since I know where I am, and I recognize the road signs and landmarks.

Comment Re:Uh... let me think about it (Score 1) 542

GPS should be a backup only. I almost never use one. Only once, in an unfamiliar place, and first thing I did before travelling was to familiarize myself with the route and roads. So all the GPS did was complain that I wasn't using the right road that it computed. But it would have been handy had I taken a wrong turn.

Comment Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump (Score 2) 570

What rights will she take? Trump has already stated he'll institute torture ("beyond waterboarding"), which his fans don't care about because they'll be suspected terrorists and thus not allowed to have rights. He wants to ban people from entering the US solely based upon their religion which infringes on rights, but his fans will say that rights don't apply to people outside of the US.

Bigger problem with Trump is that he has no real plans. He is obviously winging it and making shit up as he goes. If he gets in the white house he'll get bored of this game quickly and all the work it involves and delegate to interns. His tax plan severely cuts taxes with no way to make up the shortfall which will destroy the economy. All the talk about "on day one I will do this..." is proof he doesn't how how things work. The only reason he's running as a Republican is because that's where the angry voters are, but I don't think he has any real thought out political views of his own. Repealing Obamacare will be a massive disaster leaving millions without any way to pay for health care; you can't roll back the clock on this one quickly you would have to undo it in stages or you'll strip the gears.

Clinton on the other hand is pretty mainstream center-left, very similar to Obama. She is not an extremist, same as Obama. Obama never took any rights away, and Clinton will be similar. She's going to have much the same views as Bill had, maybe with some realization of past mistakes (like the crime bill turning out badly). Overall she'll be pretty bland I suspect. She won't get anything done in her term because of intransigence in congress. No disasters, but no improvements either, a four year holding period.

Democrats won in 1992 because Bill Clinton veered to the center (maybe with some help from Perot). Republicans could win easily in 2016 if they moved to the center instead of catering to the crazy wing.

Comment Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump (Score 1) 570

If it was Trump versus Anyone, I'd have to vote for Anyone. As bad as Hillary could be, Trump would be far worse. One could manage the four years until the next election with Hillary or Bernie. But not with Trump, and probably not with Cruz.

I was thinking about this, as a member of no political party, that you could have a third party easily forming in this race that could gain voters from the middle. We've got a bell curve of voters, but the parties are focusing on the extremes. At least during the primaries, they'll all pretend to be centrists again in the general election. But what if Kasich+Bush decided to run as a third party and grab the center? Better if it was Republican+Democrat so that they wouldn't be accused of "stealing" or "spoiling" the election like Nader or Perot were accused of doing.

I've voted for Democrats and Republicans in the past. I think that party loyalty is a vice.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computer programmers do it byte by byte.