Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Good. (Score 1) 145

Epicurus was about 3rd century BC.... well after the founding of Judaism.

However, the problems with it is that it presupposes a moral absolute that if God were truly good, and both willing and able to prevent evil, then He would. But is such a moral absolute justified as necessarily being true? Consider, does a parent who watches as their child struggles learning to walk instead of holding them up as they go necessarily hate their children?

Epicurus also fails to acknowledge that preventing evil thoughts, intentions, or consequences carries an unavoidable implication of denying free will.

Comment Re:Good. (Score 1) 145

AIDS being God's revenge on homosexuals is not actually a fundamentalist Christian belief.

The fundamentalist Christian view is that disease, all disease, exists because of man's rebellion from God. This is alleged to be not so much revenge on God's part because you can't blame a fire for not keeping you warm if you don't stay near it in the first place.

Comment Re:They have it backwards... (Score 1) 606

No.... you have it backwards again. It's not so much the strength of your math skills that helps you code better, it's how much you actually learn about math in the first place that helps you code better.

Discrete mathematics is as foundational to programming and computer science in general as exercise is to being an Olympic athlete. Without the former, there is going to be a much lower limit to how good you can become at the latter, whatever the limit of your innate skill happens to be. With the former, you can surpass that limit and become even better at it than you may have ever imagined possible.

Comment Re:Stop the presses! (Score 1) 310

I was suggesting that the AC to whom I posted is wrong... they suggested that it was only fair for men to be treated as inappropriately as they allege women have been by men. The fallacy in this is that it actually *justifies* such treatment from another in the first place.

Comment Re:duh? (Score 1) 85

Yes... but only because they weren't observant. In the third century, a famous mathematician from Greece deduced that the Earth was round by relatively casual observation, and using the crude measuring devices available at the time estimated the size of the earth to well within 15% of its actual size, which really isn't half bad for the era.

Comment Re:I have the right to watch it. (Score 1) 146

...the user has no way of knowing whether the content, the specific copy they are watching is legal or not.

For the kind of content you are talking about, you'd think the fact that they didn't pay for it, or that it wasn't being provided by someone they would have reasonable basis to believe was reputable might be a fairly good indicator, don'tcha think?

Comment Re: I don't want a fucking TV channel! (Score 1) 293

Obviously... but the experience soured me greatly on trying to participate in the ratings system, since despite the Nielson's representative's "assurance" to the contrary, it felt like what we liked didn't make any more difference being part of the ratings measurement system than being off of it.

Comment Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score 1) 617

Your reasoning assumes that if the shroud were genuine, then the energy that was used to impress the image would have radiated in all directions from Christ's body, leaving behind an image that looks quite different from one that resembles a photograph taken from some distance.

However, there is no basis to assume that.... if the shroud were genuine and the image actually formed at the moment of Christ's resurrection, the energies released during the event, at least insomuch as we would be able to discern the manifestation of it, could easily have have been entirely unidirectional, thereby producing an image more consistent with that of a photo,. like what is on the shroud.

And of course, the image doesn't even correspond with what most contemporary images of Jesus were portrayed to look like at the time of the shroud's alleged mideval manufacture.... it was common at the time to portray Christ's wounds as being in the center of his palms, and not at end of the wrists, as the shroud depicts. If it really was done by a forger, it was done by someone who had somehow figured out how crucifixion with nails was actually practiced, and was even more interested in being attentive to those details and scientific accuracy than in even being widely believed, since most people at the time would not have identified with the wounds being in the location where they were depicted on the shroud.

Sure, it's still possible that it was created by a charlatan, but how, and why? Particularly since nobody would have believed him in his lifetime anyways because it didn't conform to the common perception of Jesus. Assuming, of course, they could even see the image at all (since the image is all but completely invisible to the unaided eye).

Comment Re: I have the right to watch it. (Score 1) 146

But I don't know if it is attributed as public domain, Creative Commons, or a copyright until I have it

You can keep telling yourself that... it doesn't make it true. Especially since by your own admission:

. If [the copyright notice] were in the beginning, I'd immediately delete it before watching

So yeah.... you know. It's unlikely you'd convince anyone else that you didn't, if the matter came up, and it's probably grounds for your ISP to terminate your service if they knew about it.

Your good nature will bring you unbounded happiness.

Working...