Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:I should have thought of that (Score 1) 71

Surely you can trust a BANK. And of all the banks, Citibank is surely the most trustworthy. /SARCASM

So let's see..we'll make a list of the people who cannot be trusted when it comes to climate change:

1. Climate scientists
2. NASA
3. The Insurance Industry, which is already figuring climate change into their actuarial tables
4. The energy industry, which is already using climate change models in their strategic planning
5. The military, which is already using climate change models in their strategic planning
6. The financial industry

I guess all that's left for you to trust is Alex Jones, Breitbart, Fox News and Jesus. Good luck with that.

Comment Re:"Action" cheaper than "Inaction" is a surprise? (Score 1) 71

Because it's not as though the financial industry could make staggering amounts of money from 'Carbon Credits'.

The largest estimate for the potential size of the carbon credits market is $30 billion.

The derivatives market is worth $1.2 QUADRILLION.

The financial industry is not going to make "staggering" amounts from carbon credits when the entire carbon credit market isn't even a rounding error compared to what they're making in derivatives. You want "staggering" I would suggest looking at derivatives, which total SIXTEEN TIMES the entire GDP of the world.

The US financial industry alone paid twice as much in fines over the past few years than the total value of the carbon credit market.

Comment Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score 1) 366

But for Christianity the evidence for it's truth does exist if you carefully consider what is being actually claimed.

I've read McDowell's book. He basically lays out the same non-existent evidence that theologians have for centuries and then does a lot of conjecture. There is no evidence for Jesus existence that comes from Jesus' time. The rest is backfill from post-Paul. It's why the gospels were written in Greek instead of Aramaic or Hebrew.

Joseph Atwill makes a compelling case for the "historical Jesus" actually being allegory for the acts of Titus Flavius.

Comment Re:Mostly troll posts (Score 1) 100

While I appreciate and respect the work that went into LILO, I'm not going to wax nostalgic about it. There were lots of things I used daily Back Then - think AGP drivers, X modelines, PATA - that served me well but that I'm happy to move past. LILO did its job and I'm grateful to it, but I don't feel like a troll for not caring about what it's been up to for the last decade or so.

Comment Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score 1) 366

As you say, lack of evidence has bupkis to do with people's faith. They believe despite the total lack of evidence, not because evidence exists.

There are so many historical holes in the Bible that Christian apologists have spent more than a millennium trying to explain them away. And people still believe.

A certain percentage of the population has an innate need to believe what cannot be proven. I think this is a feature of humanity, not a bug.

Comment Re:Well... (Score 1) 366

One is the codification of an multi-millennium-old text written down from an even older oral history (e.g. The Great Flood) that has no claim to being anything else.

The other is a specific text written in a much, much more recent era - a text that was claimed to have been written directly on word from the Almighty, dictated right then and there.

As for your second claim, Christianity sprang from Judaism, and does not (indeed, cannot) claim otherwise. The "every religion around" myth tends to fall apart with even the smallest amount of research that doesn't involve Facebook memes or coffeehouse pontification.

Oh, and the Council of Nicaea (that 'voted on' thing you refer to) was a final and formal attempt to winnow out the texts which were unprovable or obviously falsified to fit an agenda (that agenda usually being Gnostic or Nestorian in origin); it was done primarily to prevent (okay, fend off) splintering and adulteration of scripture (and until Martin Luther showed up and altered the text/composition, managed to do that reasonably well. )

Comment Re:Well, that's embarrassing (Score 5, Insightful) 366

Small problem with your argument (well, two...)

1) The Shroud of Turin is not central to (or even any part of) scripture, teaching, or dogma. In fact, most Christians believe it to be a medieval construct as well, and it remains a curiosity at best, even among the majority of Catholics.

2) The alleged tomb that Jesus was laid in is probably not the one - that particular spot was picked by Helena of Constantinople nearly 4 centuries later, based on some local legends. She also allegedly found the cross, but that's most likely bunk sold to her by locals who were eager to curry favor. As with #1, it has approximately bupkis to do with scripture, teaching, or dogma (Heck, the Council of Nicaea probably hadn't even convened yet when this alleged tomb was found.) Today, it serves as a nice place to worship, and to meditate on the Passion and Resurrection, but it has no real significance otherwise.

Meanwhile... the Quran is the actual scripture of Islam; if it was found to have existed *before* the founder existed (let alone wrote it, received it from Heaven, whatever)? That's kind of like kicking the pillars out from under a rather delicate tower... it would be akin to finding a written account of Jesus' life that carbon-dates to 30-40 BCE... now *that* would be faith-shaking.

All that said, here's the fun part: the calendar we use is rather error-prone and isn't fully accurate. Most scientists and archaeologists know this, and correct for it. This is why Jesus' actual life may have begun as early as 6-10 BCE. I'm hoping these guys in TFA have managed to do those calculations for correction, and more important, did them correctly... because they're about to buy themselves a rather nasty shit-storm if they didn't. Even if they're right, I'm willing to bet that the very first counter-argument will point right to our calendar's not-so-perfect history.

Comment Re:A govt employee charged with a crime? Shock!!! (Score 1) 68

It's a big country: there are a _lot_ of local police doing good work, and it's hard, usually dull, sometimes quite dangerous work.

It's a big country: there are a _lot_ of federal employees doing good work, and it's hard, usually dull, sometimes quite dangerous work.

My point is that the local cop on the street is every bit as much a government bureaucrat as some FDA regulator in Washington. A government agent is a government agent, and the "small government/law & order" types seldom are willing to admit that.

Comment Re:Editors suck at their jobs (Score 1) 266

There are no records of those.

Yes, there are.

In fact, there are records of ocean hurricanes going back to the 17th century. Remember your freshman statistics class? You don't need to record every single data point for the data to be useful. Maybe not as useful as current satellite data, but certainly enough be useful when determining patterns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Comment Re:A govt employee charged with a crime? Shock!!! (Score 5, Insightful) 68

And if you are convinced that the US government and its courts will not turn a blind eye to criminal acts by federal employees, please review the revelations about NSA criminal and unconstitutional activities published by Edward Snowden for a recent striking example.

Not just federal employees. We see local cops getting away with murder a couple of times a week it seems.

Comment Re:Editors suck at their jobs (Score 2) 266

Assuming it was when the first weather satellite was launched in 1960, we've had 55 years of data

Bad assumption. There is storm data (and damn good data) going back to the 1850s.

Thinking people didn't record storm data prior to satellites is like thinking that there was no data on human body temperature until the invention of the digital thermometer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Comment Re:pptthh (Score 2) 266

The climate does change. It changed when humans were still in the stone age and it will be changing when humans are memories in the fossil records.

It is really impressive the way a bunch of Java programmers and tech support guys become smarter than all the climate scientists as soon as there is a story on Slashdot that mentions climate change.

"All those damn scientists are just wrong, and I know this because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and Al Gore is fat."

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Working...