Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 152

by ferrisoxide.com (#48903571) Attached to: How Do We Know the Timeline of the Universe?
What just happened Slashdot? After responding positively to someone slamming the anti-science crowd - with a simple +1 - the post seems to have gathered a couple of responses that should have gone to the AC clown. It's a small matter, and I'll say "fuck beta" (hey, never been able to follow a thread in it). But just to set the record straight, I'm with the "It works" crowd.

I can't find it now, but one poster made the point that we should ignore the anti-science crowd. My only fear is that these people vote - or worse, are in public office and able to set the agenda for education, research, etc. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think it's to wilfully deny that there is a large mass of people with incredibly dodgy ideas.

I should shut up now. Thinking about it only makes me sad.

Comment: Re: Cosmic Unicorns are more believable! (Score 1) 152

by ferrisoxide.com (#48903173) Attached to: How Do We Know the Timeline of the Universe?

Dude, relax. The Electric Universe trolls have been around Slashdot for at least a decade now. In fact, after a huge apk-esque copypasta burst in the early 2000's, they kind of faded away.

In fact, seeing an Electric Universe troll now is like spotting a baiji. Just marvel, make note of it, and move on.

Thanks man. I'm breathing a bit easier now.

This is my first sighting of one in the wild. The closest I've ever come was in my uni days, hearing someone cite Erich von Däniken in a debate on evolution.

Comment: Re: Cosmic Unicorns are more believable! (Score 2) 152

by ferrisoxide.com (#48903055) Attached to: How Do We Know the Timeline of the Universe?

Heh. Belief and Unicrons. That'll add to the discussion meaningfully !

When did slashdot become populated with loud, uneducated Americans instead of 'nerds' who actually know at least a thing or two?

I couldn't figure out if this was trolling or just someone on acid. Maybe a troll on acid. Whatever the case, that's some crazy shit.

But yeah, been getting more worried about this trend towards hokum in Slashdot. Not sure if it's just a different crowd, or the world is just getting madder. If it keeps up, I'm out.

Comment: Re: Hypocrites, liars and communists. (Score 3, Interesting) 441

by ferrisoxide.com (#48827965) Attached to: Why We Have To Kiss Off Big Carbon Now

10 years ago there were no Tesla on the road, now there are a few 1000. N*1000/0 = infinitely more Tesla

I'm amazed that nobody here has picked you up on this (indeterminately more Teslas, not infinite) - or maybe the Slashdot crowd are insensate to mathematical trolling.

Comment: Re:In the name of Allah ! (Score 2) 1350

by ferrisoxide.com (#48759591) Attached to: Gunmen Kill 12, Wound 7 At French Magazine HQ
Hehe.. Or even to be blatantly ignorant of what has actually occurred in the last 20 years. That's bliss.

It's curious that we forget that the last great act of systematic terrorism and genocide on European soil was by Christian Serbs against Bosnian Muslims. Arguably this was an ethnic dispute, not a religious one. But still, it would be easy to use this to paint Christians as blood thirsty murderers, if that was your particular beef.

History is what you make it, I guess.

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

by ferrisoxide.com (#48759427) Attached to: Gunmen Kill 12, Wound 7 At French Magazine HQ
Sometimes. The inclusion of the Old Testament in the Christian canon is curious, if it's true that the teachings of Jesus effectively say "You can forget all that old shit".

There is certainly hostility and violence brought down on gays and lesbians in Christian countries, with the Old Testament used as justification for these acts. See http://www.gaychristian101.com...

It's unfair to suggest that all Christians are like this, because it's patently not true. But similarly no Muslims I know are out there advocating violence on the basis of their religious texts (or arguing for slavery or any of the other "old school" tenets that are common to both the Biblical, Talmudic or Islamic texts). Most people of faith, in my experience, seem to be decent and caring folks. It's the dickheads with guns that give all religions a bad name.

Comment: Re:islam (Score 1) 1350

by ferrisoxide.com (#48759253) Attached to: Gunmen Kill 12, Wound 7 At French Magazine HQ
Ninian Smart's book "The Religious Experience of Mankind" makes the case for Maxism to be considered a "religion". In his comparative study of the world's religions Smart applied a set of criteria against belief systems to in order to categorise them as the basis of religious experience, to wit Marxism - and the way it is commonly experience - falls generally into Smart's definition of religion.

Ritual: Forms and orders of ceremonies (private and/or public) (often regarded as revealed)

Narrative and Mythic: stories (often regarded as revealed) that work on several levels. Sometimes narratives fit together into a fairly complete and systematic interpretation of the universe and human's place in it.

Experiential and emotional: dread, guilt, awe, mystery, devotion, liberation, ecstasy, inner peace, bliss (private)

Social and Institutional: belief system is shared and attitudes practiced by a group. Often rules for identifying community membership and participation (public)

Ethical and legal: Rules about human behavior (often regarded as revealed from supernatural realm)

Doctrinal and philosophical: systematic formulation of religious teachings in an intellectually coherent form

Material: ordinary objects or places that symbolize or manifest the sacred or supernatural



At the time of reading this (about 20 years ago) I was surprised to find Marxism included in a study that looked at Christianity, Hinduism, etc. But I remember it making sense at the time. Maybe if I went back and read the book I'd be less convinced.

Comment: Re:The limits of Dijkstra (Score 1) 303

by ferrisoxide.com (#48735339) Attached to: Anthropomorphism and Object Oriented Programming
Not always AC. Some people have actually read Dijkstra, consider him an extremely important contributor to computer science and yet have the capacity to not agree 100% with everything he said. Case in point, his comments about object oriented programming paint him as a man of his times:

"I don't think object-oriented programming is a structuring paradigm that meets my standards of elegance" (http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD12xx/EWD1284.html)

Let's not forget that Dijkstra was primarily an academic. His search for purity is admirable, but if we all followed his criteria for elegant solutions we'd never get any work done.

Whatever the case, it's the 'X considered harmful' pattern that really diminishes his work. People thrash out blog posts along these lines - including the author of the original article - as if by association their work takes on more authority. The world doesn't need any more of these academic puff pieces.

Comment: Re:The limits of Dijkstra (Score 1) 303

by ferrisoxide.com (#48729265) Attached to: Anthropomorphism and Object Oriented Programming
I think we're in total agreement here. I did read the article - and others on the same site - and know only the quote was from Dijkstra. My beef is that adherents of Dijkstra's teachings tout this nonsense all the time, but I guess it's not surprising considering Dijkstra was primarily an academic (though a thoroughly brilliant one).

I was going to go off on a huge rant about this, but I think you've summed it up. Thanks.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

Working...