Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment: Re:Confederates vs GLBTQ (Score 1) 814 814

Dummy, "officially" means "by someone in office".

What, you actually think "officially" means the same thing as "actually"?

Bwahaha! Were you too afraid to look up your own dictionary source, or did you actually choose to lie despite knowing that I'm willing to quote the dictionary definition?

in a formal and public way.
"next month the election campaign will officially begin"

with the authority of the government or some other organization
"it was officially acknowledged that the economy was in recession"

Are Amazon or Walmart organizations? Did they make a formal and public announcement?

Tell you what, if I'm going to have to explain what words mean to someone, I might as well go right to 8chan to do it and we can skip remedial reading in the comments section of Slashdot. What do you say?

Physician, heal thyself.

Comment: Re:Confederates vs GLBTQ (Score 1) 814 814

I bet you think blocking someone on Twitter is censorship, too.

When companies announce they are banning certain merchandise from their store, I am able to take them at their word.

I have no need to lie that they are not banning anything.

officially or legally prohibit.

Note the use of OR. Obviously the companies do not write law, so it cannot be legally.

For the other adverb, have the companies involved OFFICIALLY prohibited the items from being sold? You know, as opposed to UNOFFICIALLY?

Comment: Re:Confederates vs GLBTQ (Score 1) 814 814

Because those stores have decided not to carry it.

It's because they went from selling any flag, to selling any flag except this one, based on its particular symbolism. That is called a "ban". Especially on Amazon, where 3rd parties who may have been willing to sell the merchandise are no longer able to do so.

Your friendly neighborhood gun shop or convenience store or KKK supply house can still carry Confederate battle flag for all your racist flag needs, because they have not been banned.

Look at the mask slip. For pointing out his falsehood, he now calls me a racist with racist needs.

I bet you're lily-white, too.

You might want to look up the word "ban".

Ban: 1. to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict.

Or just read the news:

"Walmart, Amazon, eBay and Sears all announced bans on the sale of Confederate flag merchandise, amid an intensifying national debate over the use of the controversial flag."

You best contact Walmart, Amazon, eBay, and Sears to tell them that their bans do not exist.

Comment: Re:Confederates vs GLBTQ (Score 1) 814 814

You stupid sonofabitch, nothing has been banned. Some state governments have decided not to fly the Confederate battle flag over government properties any more. Some stores have decided, privately not to sell Confederate battle flags any more.

Liar. If nothing has been banned, why is it impossible to buy the flag on Amazon and other big stores?

If he said the government banned it from the country, your criticism would be relevant. But he didn't. A private store's self-imposed ban is still a ban.

Comment: Re:"stealing just like stealing anything else" (Score 1) 408 408

Accessing US Netflix outside of the US may break terms of use (which Netflix would have a VERY hard time winning a lawsuit over), but does not currently break any Canadian laws. No more than using a VPN to access any other website.

Why would they sue you when they can just disable your account and end the business relationship?

Comment: Re:Put some content in your damn game (Score 1) 126 126

So, because you prefer an epic gaming experience, all other gaming forms should be ignored?

2+ hours of gameplay is not remotely close to being "epic". It means the game has a fairly minimal amount of entertainment value ... about the same duration as a movie.

If the game cannot hold a player's attention beyond 2 hours, it's little more than a glorified demo. No one's banning that "gaming form" ... but fewer people will want to pay money for it.

Comment: Re:Creationism (Score 1) 445 445

Okay, you want to me to say your entire argument is invalid, fine, it is, you've put in place a designer, so who designed it?

Why does the designer of the designer matter to this argument?

Not knowing if man has a designer does not affect whether or not is reasonable to argue that man designed cars/computers/etc. Not knowing if god has a designer does not affect whether or not it is reasonable to argue that god designed man.

You want to claim a designer created life, well then that designer had to be designed. You've caused an infinite regression paradox, so try again.

You are introducing a premise that is not a part of my argument. I know that my argument does not require this premise. You have created a different argument than mine and said that different argument has a paradox. Since it is not my argument, I don't care.

You're welcome to elaborate on how your premise should be included in my argument ... but until you show the logical steps on why your different argument is actually identical to mine, I don't give any weight to your claim that my argument is invalidated by paradox.

Again, we can identify human designed objects without knowing the designer of humans (if such exists). We can identify god designed objects without knowing the designer of god (if such exists).

This time put some effort into it.

Do remember that I have the experience of our previous discussion, and I was not impressed with your ability to reason. I'm not impressed now, either. You regularly misread my points, and show no intellectual humility by acknowledging the errors and dropping the prosecutorial stance.

Comment: Re:Creationism (Score 1) 445 445

No, semi-valid means it has some good points but not all the talking points are correct or complete.

"Your code is semi-valid"

"Uh, does that mean it's valid?"

"Well, no, I like parts of it, but ... "

"So you mean it's broken and invalid then."

Say what you mean. If there are parts that are not correct, then break it and show that it's broke. That's what rational argument *is*.

It's either valid or invalid. If there's any part that is broken, then it is invalid. Otherwise, a failure to find broken parts indicates that the argument is valid.

Evolution doesn't deal with origins, it doesn't make the point of answering what started it all, [...]

I wasn't talking about origins. I was criticizing evolution as a design process. It boils down to try random things and see what fails to go extinct.

That's insufficient to build something intricately complex, based on our actual experience with software and computer engineering. It's an article of faith that throwing infinite time at a lousy process will allow it to create excellent outputs.

I never said junk DNA, 99.8% of all DNA is just the "house keeping" DNA, it's the same for every person, ti's the other .2% that makes me, me and you, you. I might have the percentages off, but none the less, the idea works.

I know you did not. It was part of my overall point about the intricacy of human design and inadequacy of randomly driven evolution as an explanation for its existence.

Well if you take an infinite amount of time, a team of monkeys at some point, even randomly mashing on the keyboard will of course be able to replicate my work.

... Theoretically. You have not actually performed that experiment, and the universe has existed for a finite duration of time, based on our current physics understanding and the constraints of thermodynamics.

That I could theoretically level a mountain by myself given an infinite amount of time does not indicate I have actually done so.

The world looks designed, I've admitted that, however that doesn't mean God designed it.

I said I would offer a rational argument for God. This fulfills the requirements. That you can come up with a counter argument does not negate the existence or rationality of the argument.

I'll give you forgiveness in that I didn't answer abiogenesis, so I won't make you answer abiogod, but you would still have to show beyond all possible doubts that DNA could not started on earth without a designer, which is going to be hard because scientists have been able to create amino acids in a lab.

Please look at the italicized and bolded parts and think through your arguments more thoroughly.

Back to the main point, I don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DNA was designed. That's a standard of evidence used for criminal trials to avoid harming the innocent. We can and do use different standards for different topics.

Whether or not the "design" is actually from a designer does not change that designers are observed to create designs, and designers are a reasonable explanation for the existence of anything that has a "design".

It's poor argument because you've only really said that 1 didn't design 1 and there for God.

1. Someone with the ability to create man and all other life has sufficient creative power to be considered god.

2. The existence of man is evidence for such a being's existence.

3. Thus, the existence of man is evidence for god existing.

I don't care how you feel about the argument. Either break it or accept that it is a valid argument, even if you don't like the conclusion.

Comment: Re:Creationism (Score 1) 445 445

I'll give you credit on actually giving me a semi valid point, at least an intelligent, well thought out point, possibly the best on there really is.

Semi-valid is actually invalid. Come on, now. Break it or accept it.

I don't know if you accept evolution, but the current evolution theory can trace DNA from modern man back to early bacteria, this means that DNA has gained complexity over time, though means of replication, this also means that information had to produce itself over time.

As a design process, evolution is an undirected search over a design space, using an extremely weak filter of "does not die" to refine the design.

Popularity aside, it's not a serious answer to human origin. It could sort of past muster when cells were thought to be blobs of simple chemicals, but we now know they are complex nano-factories running off of digital blueprints.

Junk DNA has turned out to be nothing of the sort, and I believe "non-coding DNA" is related to control logic and error checking. And that's before we even start to look at symbiosis and ecosystems.

My point is that something such as DNA can be decomposed into smaller, simpler systems, which when assembled, create more complex, "designed", states. Scientists have been able to create amino acids in a lab, which granted, is not full DNA, but it does demonstrate the simple system design methodology.

How many retards does it take to equal a single intelligent designer? How many monkeys randomly hitting buttons and clicking "Compile" will replicate your work as a SW engineer?

Bearing in mind that failure is an option, there being no finite number is a very real possibility.

The supposed natural origins of complex designs aren't anywhere close to being explanations. So we're left with the one known good explanation of design - intelligent design; one that was historically believed in, and consistent with any computer engineer's experience with information systems.

If you want to pose a designer, then you have ask yourself, who designed the designer?

No, I do not. I don't have to know anything about the designer of man, to recognize that something like a computer or a car is a designed object, and that those were designed by man.

Extrapolating that true relationship to conclude that man too is a designed object is rational. Incomplete, perhaps, but working with incomplete information should not be anything new to an engineer. ("So you want me to buid you a widget but you don't know what you want ...")

However you posed probably the one acceptable argument for God, however, it doesn't really answer anything because it requires a designer for a designer, which just pushes the one true creator into an infinite regression paradox.

Nothing about my argument says that every designer must have his own designer. It merely points out that man did not design himself and that man isn't even capable of designing himself; therefore this is evidence for the existence of a superior being that designed man.

And no, it's not the one acceptable argument for god. It's the one that I like, though, and one that every techie should acknowledge. To deny it is like denying the existence of lolcats and porn on the Interwebz.

Comment: Re:Creationism (Score 1) 445 445

Yep, all I really want to hear are some logical, rational arguments in favor of a God, that's it.

/sigh. Knowing our previous discussion, I don't believe you. There's too much history of people thinking and arguing on the topic for you to have not found a single rational argument, if that's all you were looking for.

But I said I would offer one, and so here's one from a systems engineering point of view.

I work with computer systems and building up software/hardware to collect information, process it, and pass it around. I can recognize the complexity of a system, and the level of effort needed to build complex systems versus simple ones. There's an obvious difference in wht it takes to rendering realistic 3D graphics versus displaying the simple text "Hello World!", for example

As such, I can recognize that the human body far exceeds the functionality of any human built system in history. There are an estimated 37.2 trillion cells in your body, all working together to make you continue to live. Those trillions of cells are grouped into a dozen or so systems throughout your body. Those parts working together using many nested layers of feedback loops. All of that starts from a single cell, working from its DNA blueprint.

That's an amazing design, and we don't even understand it enough to replicate it, let alone build something better.

The fact that the human body operates from an amazing intricate design is evidence for a superhuman designer. That is, a being that is above humans in ability to create designs.

Comment: Re:Alternate story title (Score 1) 445 445

Manipulating search results is essentially a service available to the highest bidder.

There is a benign reason for why the AIG link ended up on top of the list - that Google happened to use an algorithm that weighted it as the "best answer" (faultily?).

So evidence is there that AIG paid to manipulate search engine results and get their page at the top of the list?

Comment: Re:Finally (Score 1) 866 866

First of all I absolutely do not give science any power above that of man. Man preforms science to get answers and pose bigger questions.

Then no man has any obligation to accept what "science" says, which makes your constant appeals to science pointless.

Yet again, your philosophy contradicts itself. You claim one stance, but act against it.

You want me to apologize, but for what?

The following:

The Gospel of Andrew: "And God just said to me, anyone who believes in him is an idiot".

There, if you honestly believe in the bible or that God can talk to man, you have to believe I was just given a prophecy and revealed it to man.

Followed by:

That was a revelation by God, at least the voice said it was God, could of been an alien, or a delusion, doesn't matter, or I could of made it up, you have no way to tell.

This is an insult to my intelligence, regardless of your intentions.

That you're still asking me to "prove God" demonstrates you had no such experience at all ... and yet you expect me to believe your lies just because I believe there is a god? Idiocy, all the way down.

I don't intend to insult your intelligence in anyway, I would never make a personal attack directly at you as I don't know you. If you felt at anytime I did then I'm sorry, it was intended to come off that way, but I seriously want to hear what ace's you have in your pocket to prove God, Please!.

That is not an apology. You claim ignorance and innocent intentions, and then say you're sorry for my feelings, which you are not responsible for.

The facts are that you made up a stupid lie and you expected me to believe it. Apologize for your actions, not for my feelings, and do so without excuses.

Comment: Re:Finally (Score 1) 866 866

I've asked you several times to make arguments in the name of God, you've rejected it.

Because you don't have the intellectual integrity to handle it.

For example, you lied about getting a divine revelation and it was trivially easy to poke a hole in the claim.

When you think I'm bound by my religion to accept your lies because you added "god" into the sentence ... reasoned arguments are pointless.

If you can get why that was stupid, and then apologize for insulting my intelligence with such nonsense, I will provide an argument for the existence of god for you to critique.

he belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power

Which point of my atheism fits into those?

You believe in science as a superhuman ("above, beyond"-human) source of knowledge, which takes the place of God in the absence of evidence for god.

Like I said, I know religion. I'm seeing it in you. You shouldn't assume that hatred of god and disbelief in god means you escape the religious nature of mankind.

Excessive login or logout messages are a sure sign of senility.