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


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

Comment: Re:Slippery slope (Score 1) 256 256

Atheism implies belief in: empiricism, naturalism, evolution and humanism.

It might do to you, that may be why you consider it a religion. It doesn't to me. Just because people who don't believe in a god are more likely to believe some other things than religious people, does not make it a religion. If short people were more likely than others to believe some things, does that make being short a religion?

No one can know that there's no god absolutely. That being said, no one can know anything absolutely (with the possible exception of cogito ergo sum, but that is problematic too). The brain in a jar argument isn't very useful.

All that being said, I believe there is no god. However, this is an entirely pointless question, in my opinion, and doesn't affect my life in any way whatsoever. What affects my life is my lack of belief in some of the more popular gods, and that's what makes me an atheist.

Back on topic, I'm from the UK, and we have a law outlawing incitement to religious hatred. Now I do hate some religions (Scientology, fundamental Christianity, some Islamic sects), and I would encourage others to hate them too.

See what I did there? I just broke the law. Chances of me getting charged with a crime = 0%. Yeah, well I didn't really :

29JProtection of freedom of expression Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

It specifically allows abuse of religions. The incitement to religious hatred law is actually actually pretty specific : "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred."

Key word : "Threatening". It seems pretty sensible, but the trouble with this, and a whole host of laws that Labour introduced under Tony Blair, is that it was already illegal. They also criminalised setting off nuclear devices in towns and cities. Because that wasn't illegal before, right?

Comment: Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot (Score 2) 256 256

They are, broadly, a bunch of well-behaved socialist conformists who are afraid of the real world, and think that a panopticon surveillance state will make them "safe". It is disgusting.

You don't know what you're talking about. There are some people in the UK who fit that description, but they are a minority.

Take a guess at the number of firearms now legally owned in the UK..... It'll be a hell of a lot higher than you think. Also, there are some guns that are legal in the UK that are illegal in the US (though getting a license for them might be tricky). I could get a shotgun within a few weeks if I wanted one, despite having a criminal record.

Personally, I'm pragmatic, generally. When we banned hand guns in the UK in the late 90's, hand gun crime (ie. crimes using hand guns, not ownership of a hand gun, which might well have been expected to go up) went up for years afterwards, despite having had being going down previously. The ban actually seemed to increase hand gun crime.

David Davis (for one) Is very influential in the conservative party, just to show one person who is very concerned about privacy issues.

Comment: Re:Because titan has ice, pluto isn't even a plane (Score 1) 98 98

I've pointed this out to people before, and it's amusing to explain.

How far out would the moon have to be to become another planet, and us to be just part of a binary system?

I know it's relatively close now, the barycentre being only about a thousand miles beneath the surface of Earth, and I know the moon is receding from us too (though slowly). When will it get far enough out to become a planet?

Comment: Re:imperial = fagot (Score 1) 134 134

What's even worse is that British imperial units are different from American Imperial units. Miles per gallon, for example, is different, because the British gallon is bigger than the American gallon, resulting in higher mpg figures. And yes, everyone still uses miles per gallon in Britain, rather than anything else. Petrol and Diesel is sold in litres (and can't legally be sold in gallons), though. Yes, it's insane.

We're not allowed to buy milk in pints, either, so everything now is just 568ml, and lots of cans and jars are 454g.

Comment: Re:You always wondered what dinosaurs taste like . (Score 1) 90 90

Modern thinking is that crocodiles descended directly from a warm blooded ancestor, and reverted to being cold blooded, because there's no reason for the warm blooded characteristics they have now without having had a warm blooded ancestor, and there's not been enough time to evolve new things rather than revert.

Comment: Re:Professional liars often tell the truth (Score 1) 222 222

A person that automatically believes the NSA is lying is really not much different than a person that automatically believes the NSA is telling the truth.

The NSA has lied about many things regarding the Snowden case, and Snowden hasn't (as far as I know). Critical thinking should help you figure out which is more likely to be a reliable source now.

No one's claiming that _everything_ that the NSA says is a lie, that's a straw man. However, since they have repeatedly been shown to have lied in the past, you'd be stupid to treat them as anything but completely unreliable.

Comment: Re:Good for the Goose.... (Score 1) 337 337

Now that the US has taken action, other countries are starting to investigate their local officials. Even if all American charges are dropped (and it looks like there are at least a few with sufficient American ties to be prosecuted regardless) there will be plenty of other countries with their own jurisdictions that are going to jump on the bandwagon.

The prime reason why the FIFA corruption scandal has come to the forefront is nothing to do with the US. It's essentially about UEFA (the European football association) actually making enough of a stink about it (enough for some to actually start talking about leaving FIFA), and (more importantly) the Swiss legislature talking about forcing organisations to disclose payments (bribes). The US has essentially zero to do with it, as the US has essentially zero power in world football.

Comment: Re:hum (Score 1) 337 337

Here's what you can do: butcher your own meat. People do it every day, though you sound much too lazy and entitled and whiny to do anything that might involved getting your hands dirty. Which probably also rules out you growing your own vegetables - you might have to clean your fingernails afterwards, so you won't soil your keyboard when typing your next woe-is-me rant.

Yeah.... that works well in the middle of a big city. Do you know how much is actually eaten daily in a big city? If everyone were to individually try to grow their own vegetables, and rear their own meat in a city of 10 million, it'd be instant chaos, and probably at least double the carbon output of the city.

Mass production works better, generally, that's why we do it.

1) Move somewhere you like.

And if everyone "moves somewhere they like"? You can't solve bad places by just saying "move".

2) Start your own company. Hire people

Which people? The people I was going to hire already started their own company. There aren't any employees any more in your utopia.

ps. I do butcher some of my own meat, and grow some of my own vegetables, but I'm lucky to live where I do.

Comment: Re:Good Luck (Score 1) 337 337

Britain made a lot of promises during the war, it failed to keep many of them in a timely manner (or at all). One is forced to wonder if they had any intention of upholding the promises in the first place.

Britain was in massive debt after the war, and in bad shape (sugar rationing ended in 1953, meat rationing ended in 1954, nearly 10 years after the end of the war). It was also coping with colonies left right and centre wanting to declare independence. Essentially, Britain wasn't in much of a position to deal with a lot of promises made during the war.

We still managed to start the Suez war, though, I guess (and that went really well).

Comment: Re:Good Luck (Score 1) 337 337

I think you're confused. If you've got consumers in a country, and you're selling to them, you've got to abide by local consumer laws. Sorry, that's how it is. It doesn't matter where the company is based.

Trying to get some tiny shop in Hong Kong to comply with the morass of EU legislation, and whether it's worth going after them if they don't is an entirely different question. But if you're a multinational, and try to sell out of somewhere to the EU without adhering to the regulations, you will get slapped down.

Now, the trouble is that Google isn't actually charging for anything, which makes it a little less clear. However, they are making profit by people in the EU using their service, though, and so (in my opinion) should obey the laws that apply to those people, and the local companies.

Comment: Re:So sorry... (Score 1) 85 85

one of the main reasons Concorde became less profitable after that was because a lot of the services clientèle were killed in the 9/11 attacks.

The 3,000 people killed in 9/11 represent about 0.15% of the populations of New York and London. As comparison. 42,000 people were killed in car accidents in 2001.

You're using a keyboard! How quaint!