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

 



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

Comment: Re:Slippery slope (Score 1) 264 264


You may have considered it polite and non-offensive but not everyone will, which is the point.

Replace unicorns with snake oil. The points stands. Belief lacking any factual basis that is protected by law may as well be the celestial teapot, pink unicorns or anything else without factual basis.

The point being is that in this case religion itself allows no flexibility. If you deny the holy spirit and evidently I do I cannot be forgiven ergo, according to this baseless belief I am a "sinner". Such a biased belief based on nothing at all should not have legal protection.
You see to deny the holy spirit is apparently a big deal and that offends people. Imagine how ridiculous it would be to deny the holy snake oil. Just as baseless, just as valid.

My argument is for sense. Legislation such as this has too much room for error. Queue "I'm offended" lawsuits.

Comment: Re:Slippery slope (Score 1) 264 264


OK. I find the belief in unfounded god/s is one of the leading causes of murder, rape and mutilation etc throughout history. It has also repeatedly held humanity's progress back and tend to be non-democratic and unreasonable in nature having no place in schools or modern life in general.

I argue that if there was a god he/she/it would not need any believers nor would he need them to be offended to defend his/her/its name or honour.

Furthermore as the very nature of a supreme being/entity is knowledgeable to humans should such a being or entity actually exist it would be impossible for humans to know the will of such a deity and is best left for the deity to express, preferably in written form. (sure you can say some holy book but I'm pretty sure an all powerful deity does not need people to make editing mistakes in written form and then claim divine origins.

If I believe, wholly and deeply in divine pink unicorns a legislation demanding that others respect such an unfounded belief would be an insult.

The very questioning of belief is repeatedly a cause to offend some. After all, the only unforgivable sin is to deny the holy spirit, should such a spirit exist in the unlikely event that spirits become factual.

It is high time that much like homoeopathy things which have absolutely no basis are removed from legal protections etc. Besides, if god doesn't like it, he'll just change it back right?

Comment: Slippery slope (Score 2) 264 264


While I welcome the spirit of the legislation I am concerned about the enforcement.

You will be quick to note the rather dubious "serious emotional distress" and "causing harm by posting digital communication." -who determines this?

While I can absolutely understand making sure no racist, sexist etc posts are discouraged if not eliminated what's this "religious intolerance" nonsense? -If enough people claimed to believe in someone, no matter how absurd it can officially be recognised as religion. Why does this deserve special rights?

If you think about it, when someone says something and another person is offended it's not clear cut who has it wrong. Did the person intend to offend? was it that you disagreed or are of a gentler nature? did he speak in anger or while intoxicated? -factors that need consideration.

I really hope this bill will be implemented in a measured manner. I can see any number of groups pursuing lawsuits due to some of these items.

Comment: Re:Saw it coming (Score 4, Informative) 229 229


Amusing but the truth is there was doubt if this franchise will be killed off due to legal issues.

The truth is loads of geeks want to know this and there was a bit of an interesting intellectual rights battle between Bethesda and Interplay.

So really, this is a little bit of a surprise ifyou think that my most beloved game series of all times was almost axed because of some failed MMO you insesitive clod!

Read more here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Comment: Use their tracking agasint them (Score 2) 147 147


Just fill out false information, post pictures that are not you, tag things incorrectly, feed the bots dust til they choke.

If you think about it's possible to loop their own ads back to them...just help spread the advertisement.

They agreed to these conditions when they accept me as a user.

Comment: What's this "deniers" garbage? (Score 0, Flamebait) 422 422


Once upon a time if you denied say the holocaust then it would put you in a very bad light because of mountains of evidence of something that has obviously happened. It was fact and to deny the series of factual events would be shameful at best.

We have climate change as a hot topic. The climate changes, fact. I don't know of any climate change so called "deniers" that deny the fact the climate changes.

The supposed denial is in the disagreement about how the climate changes. Some say the poles will melt and the world will be covered in sea water in X time. We argue about X time....we also argue about Y influence of humans in this mix and the Z rate at which some of these changes occur.

More things we argue about; such as the supposed infallible proof that this is not 'seasonal' on a geological time scale and how much of this is outside of the influence of humans.

Things that muddy the waters are inaccurate readings, flawed methodologies, the numerous times equipment malfunctioned and gave incorrect measurements etc.

I wish we had the ability to film ice loss 9000 years ago, would giant ice sheets falling scare everyone? if we had measurements to show one thing or another would we think the sky is falling?

Ice "loss"...reason to be concerned? -maybe. Is this not a normal cycle by which the ice sheet thins and shrinks over very long cycles of years? is it possible that something like this never happened before and yet not because of gas guzzling 4x4??

Please forgive me if I do not immediately stop using fossil fuels etc.

I get labelled with "denier" because I disagree with some assessments, theories and assertions.

So let me just say this one more time; I do not disagree that the climate is changing. How it is changing, at what rate and because of what is subject for debate amongst experts as well and even that is not a fool-proof indication because guess what you can have a large group of so called "experts" and they can all be wrong. Best make up your own mind and risk being an "expert opinion denier".

Comment: Oh, so now they have money! (Score 4, Interesting) 202 202


Look, over there! -A financially successful venture.

Why do they have millions? that's not right 'they' should take all the money away or wikimedia foundation should give us stuff, because.

Sure, we didn;t envy them when it was just a concept considered shaky at best. We didn't envy when they were struggling or were on the verge of collapse...

But look, over there, they have money! -they should have dust, or little else because *anger*, just because.

A few bucks for a rainy day, or an expansion etc. always easy to count costs for someone else and what they should and shouldn't do with money that is not your own.

Have a coke and a smile. Say, 'heck few people thought this will ever make money, now it did even though it was not created solely out of greed. Congratulations and well done!'

Comment: Makes no sense (Score 2, Insightful) 429 429


Older people have families, experience and have been around the circus before.

Young programmers are much better. Firstly they often have nothing better to do. Their living expense tend to be lower and they often cannot tell when they are being screwed over for pay until they are are feeling the shaft for a couple of years.
They have no family commitments and when the big boss man smiles and asks if you can do this one extra thing for the team you say "sure boss!" and not "My boy has this thing at school..."

Why hire old programmers? they question the logic, they see through the corporate bullshit, they won't work for peanuts and often cannot do overtime. Forget that they actually know what their contract means and exactly what you can and cannot get them to do. They are not cool. They don't any Justin Bieber songs and they don't play COD.

Why bother with those old people when you can have fizzy drinking kids willing to bend over backwards? -code quality? -efficiency? -less re-work? most managers have very little grasp of how those looks like & those people make "suggestions for the business".

Old developers...as old as 40...they are practically dying already, why hire their kind? -makes no sense I tell you.

Comment: I hear ya cous (Score 4, Insightful) 509 509


Of course, if you get the camera slapped out of your hand while being tazed and the officer then claims you assaulted him who's gonna film it?

Just how many cops have behaved inappropriately and have remained on the force. How many messed up or plainly did wrong and are still earning your tax dollar?

Idealistic talk is nice...facts on the ground is another thing.

Land of the free...yeah right.

Comment: Keep the foreigners at bay! (Score 1) 442 442


At least until the locals catch-up to the market requirements...or else they risk being put out of a job because they cannot compete.

Let's not forget that foreigners lower average wage because they are willing to work for less.

Better to make sure they cannot enter the US so they can go elsewhere for a long enough time for the US not to be a destination for talent any more.

OMG competing for resources and needing to be useful at a competitive rate, the shock, the horror. Think you can do better? think you deserve more money? prove it by doing better and getting paid more...or keep blaming greedy corporations and "foreigners stealing jobs".

If companies cannot get the talent in guess what? they'll outsource what they can, move away if possible. Demand is the driving force, supply is the solution to meet demand.

Application quotas will not drive the US forward it will instead ensure it gets left behind.

Comment: The terrorists win (Score 1) 161 161


IF we cannot body scan you
IF we cannot read your emails
IF we cannot read your medical records
IF we cannot detect your location
IF we cannot determine your political beliefs
then one day that will become
The terrorists win IF we cannot read your mind


Because if you're innocent why would you want to hide anything right? because data collection agencies, corporations and the government have done such a stellar job making sure that information is handled ethically and protected privacy in an adequate manner, right?

How is that load of bullshit working so far? -when will draconian security measure applied without cause or reason be seen for what they are?

There is always be those that use violence to influence, no amount of snooping and big brother shit will ever change that.

Comment: Re:That explains a lot doesn't it? (Score 1) 894 894


While your examples are obviously extreme to illustrate a point one can lobby peacefully. If you cannot wear your favourite religious clothing item to go to school then go to a different school.

Better yet, lobby to change the law.

Dictatorships and oppressive regimes aside, France is not comparable to WWII Germany or the nazis. That's a step too far.

The beauty of democracy and why it's so much better despite it's numerous flaws is that everyone has a voice. Where is my voice under religious rule?

You wish to protest your right to practice religion? do so!

If god was really so offended he'd come down from heaven and smite us. Please leave the smiting to him lest you take up his roll in the name of what you can accept.

365 Days of drinking Lo-Cal beer. = 1 Lite-year

Working...