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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:The Emperor Julian (Score 3, Informative) 191

by Mjlner (#49325879) Attached to: Your favorite Julian?

Both of Julian's parents were Christians, and he was a student of the Bible. He essentially rejected Christianity; that is the definition of "apostate". So the term is appropriate. If he had been a secular ruler, rather than politically targeting Christians in an effort to to reverse the religious course of the empire, it might not have been such a sticking point. A just ruler, perhaps-- but apostate.

By his own accord, Julian never accepted Christianity, so it could be said that the term apostate doesn't apply. Julian's father was not initially Christian, but a convert. He was the half-brother of Constantine who also famously converted. There is therefore no evidence of Julian ever being Christian.

This is of course mostly relevant if you consider the term apostate a pejorative, which is very much a Christian stance. Therefore only Christians at the time and later Christians make a case of arguing the point. It reminds me a bit of the nazi "accusing" Chaplin of being a Jew.

Comment: Re:In the name of Allah ! (Score 1) 1350

by Mjlner (#48763549) Attached to: Gunmen Kill 12, Wound 7 At French Magazine HQ

Not that you made any such claim, but those are all Old Testament scriptures, thus for Christians they have been overridden by the teachings of Jesus Christ. None of those apply to Christianity, which makes sense, as you don't see Christians running around trying to enforce anything of the sort.

It quite clearly does apply, but most Christians today choose to ignore it.
"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:18

And Jesus is anything but merciful to non-believers:
"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." Luke 19:27

Comment: Re:Paired with.... (Score 1) 307

by Mjlner (#45547505) Attached to: Jolla's First Phone Goes On Sale

So how do they make money if they don't sim lock? I mean, I'm all for that but it doesn't make a lot of sense from a business perspective.

What a weird opinion. The concept of SELLING stuff usually implies making money. Why would they not make money from selling phones? Are you assuming that they give away phones for free?

Comment: Re:Sounds like a problem... (Score 1) 507

by Mjlner (#45277719) Attached to: How Big Data Is Destroying the US Healthcare System

Insurance is supposed to be about spreading risk of uncertain futures, not giving hand-outs (wealth redistribution) when futures are known..

No, insurance is gambling where the insured places a bet on the chance that he will get ill some time in the future. The insurance company is a casino which dictates the odds. The odds are always favourable to the insurance company, especially when the company has the option of denying you your bet. To the insured, it may look like spreading the risk, but it is really about placing a sucker bet. The casino wins, always.

Of course, an individual who chooses not to take that bet risks being screwed for life, unless he's filthy rich and doesn't need an insurance. That is why the concept of health insurance as business is inherently wrong. It is about threatening people with events out of their control into taking a bet which is unfavourable to them. This is why I, as a non-US citizen, can not give my full support to Obamacare. It's still using a system which is inherently flawed, only slightly better than the previous set of rules. Well, I'm one of the lucky ones. I don't need insurance, I have National Healthcare. You should try it. It rocks!

Wealth redistribution is fine (even though it's not insurance) as long as it follows the precedence outlined by the principle of subsidiarity: self, family, community or church, provincial government, national government, world government.

That is your opinion, based on nothing but opinion. The problem with your order of precedence is that incurs extra cost at every level. Cutting out the extra tiers will cut costs immensely and save money by pure volume. Besides, if there's anything that citizens should be able to rely on their government for, it's health care. Stop pumping your money into the war machinery and corn subsidies. Stop filling your expensive jails with people who smoke a joint. Not saying legalize it, just saying that potheads in jail are a waste of money and bring no value.

Money can't buy happiness, but it can make you awfully comfortable while you're being miserable. -- C.B. Luce