Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Let's face it... (Score 1) 260

Yes actually, that book says if Jesus didnt live again, then it's a complete waste of time and to examine the evidence to decide for yourself.

And how do you suppose one should attempt to falsify that?

If you look at the evidence - and despite what you are about to say, there most certainly IS evidence to look at - and say yes, He did live again.... well that's going to be interesting for you, isnt it? But this notion Christianity is not falsifiable is garbage.

At the very best all you can do is say that some people from the first century WROTE that some other people had seen Jesus alive again after he died, some 40-50 years prior. It only works if you trust everything they wrote as being accurate. You can appeal to other events recorded in the same gospels, but now you've just increased the number of dubious events with no means of verifying any of them.

I think there is at best a lot of uncertainty surrounding the events, and at worst it's pretty damn likely there was no resurrection.

Comment Re:one instance (Score 1) 361


From the article:

[quote]Most of all though, we can see that this bomb, like just about every other real bomb, didn’t have a visible clock. Placing a pretty LED display on the outside of the box is something that happens in the movies, not reality.[/quote]

Um, yeah, until someone decides that putting a pretty LED display on the outside of the box would be a good way to have a bomb go undetected.

Comment Re:Way too many problems (Score 1) 74

In the Linux world, I guess we would call this "natural selection" ;-)

I've been using Arch Linux as both a work and a personal desktop for over a year now. What am I doing that you're not, or vice versa?

Arch excels at its primary purpose. It's by far the best linux distro I've used, and I've tried many (for serious work not just tinkering).

Comment Re:Put away your pitch forks (Score 2) 553

I always thought there was a kind of natural selection happening in the linux world.

If systemD is so bad, how is it now the standard in pretty much every distro? It must serve some purpose. On the other hand, complaining about it seems to serve no purpose at all. If the teams who put together every distro thought this way, they wouldn't have used it. No doubt there are some distros that don't use it.

I just don't see the point in all of these complaints. What good does it do?

The existing systems must be inferior in some way - maybe even just PR? If systemD really isn't a better toaster, then either build one that is, or get into discussions with distro makers. That seems to me to be a far better course of action than continually complaining to peers about how bad systemD is and how it's taking over linux.

Comment Re:Makes sense. (Score 1) 629

Does Google even have any devices currently running 4.3?

I think it would be nice if they patched it, but the patch would still need to be picked up by manufacturers and released to carriers and then to phones.

The manufacturers could just as easily patch it themselves. Not that this lets Google off the hook.

Comment Re:Battler (Score 2) 291

Saying that other people are worse than is not a valid argument. It doesn't improve our score one bit. It just adds to the list of people we should be disappointed in.

Our treatment of refugees is disgusting. I don't care who does it even worse. It doesn't make what we do any better. It most definitely doesn't make it acceptable.

Slashdot Top Deals

"What a wonder is USENET; such wholesale production of conjecture from such a trifling investment in fact." -- Carl S. Gutekunst