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

 



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) 160

The funny thing is that the stories about a supposed supreme being put me in mind of the song "Big Rock Candy Mountain", because that captures intentionally something fundamental which is in a lot of those other stories. The song is about a hobo's paradise. In that version of paradise, nothing has really changed, except that everything individually is better: the hobo in question doesn't even stop getting bitten by bulldogs, it's just that in paradise they have rubber teeth. I like the song because I think it really captures how people think and dream. But because it focusses on a hobo, it's more obviously and intentionally absurd.

I never considered the religious implications of that song. Thanks for giving me that, friend.

Comment Re:Good. (Score 2) 160

Doing that for eternity is probably what hell is really about. Heaven has to be even better.

Except you're the Supreme Being, so you can fix all the bugs in MGSV and Arkham Knight and pwn all the noobs (though I understand Michael the Archangel is internationally ranked on Splatoon).

And, you can change it up any time you want. Have the hot chicks with snacks come at 10am and answer prayers in the evening if you want. Play Xbox One instead of Playstation. Have spicy wings instead of pizza. Do whatever you want because you're the Supreme Being, dammit.

I still don't see what God would have to be so pissed about that He feels the need to send disease and pestilence to humans who didn't ask to be created, after all.

Comment Re:monogomous relationships (Score 1) 160

If two homosexuals were in an exclusive, monogomous relationship, they wouldn't have to worry about HIV in the first place.

It makes you wonder why anyone would oppose gay marriage, doesn't it? Like that goofball from Kentucky, says God doesn't want her to do her job and fill out the form in the county clerk's office so gay people can get married, and it turns out she's been divorced three times. Fucking hell. You have to wonder about people who read about Christ in the gospels and come away thinking, "I'm gonna go fuck over some people." I don't know what goddamn gospels they've read, but the only people that Jesus was pissed off at were capitalists who were doing business at the temple and he laid some whupass on them. Other than that, Jesus was pretty chill.

Comment Re:Good. (Score 1) 160

Not sure why people think that a supreme being should be warm-and-fuzzy. If you were a supreme being, would you be warm and fuzzy? Not that we should make any god in our image...

On the other hand, if 9/10 [gallup.com] people believed in something (like global warming) and you didn't want to believe in it because it didn't make you feel warm and fuzzy, would you be a denier? Just food for thought, OK?

First, we were supposedly made in God's image and fuck yeah I'd be warm and fuzzy. Why would I be pissed off if I'm the supreme being? What would possibly be worth getting pissed about?

I'd answer prayers from 10-11am every day, have some lunch and then play Playstation 4 for the rest of the day until beer-thirty and then maybe call up some hot chicks and tell them to bring snacks. Why wouldn't I be warm and fuzzy?

Seriously God, why all the anger?

Comment Re:Good. (Score 1) 160

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.

I don't mean any disrespect, but God sounds like kind of a prick, you know? Creates humans in His image, gives them free will, and then punish the fuck out of them for using it. What an asshole. He's basically saying, "Stop hitting yourself" while beating your ass.

Comment Re:Folding@Home (Score 1) 52

Really? Did they print it themselves?

No, they spent it themselves.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that a consumer economy is funded by the consumers? That the labor and productivity and earnings of people pay all the bills? Is this some artifact left over from the supply-side economics of the '80s?

No exceptions.

Comment Re:Folding@Home (Score 1) 52

This is so completely wrong. The customers paid for a drug. They got the drug, and now the money they paid for it isn't theirs. Big bad pharma then took the money that belonged to them and paid for the research.

Let me know when the day comes that a pharmaceutical company chooses to spend money on research and not recoup it from consumers, plus profit.

It's always consumers that pay, in front or at the end, it's always consumers.

Comment Re:Ignorant fucking asshole (Score 3, Interesting) 168

You know why?

I think a big part of it is because the guys who flew RC aircraft over the years have been serious hobbyists and not "I bought this on Amazon" goofballs.

I walk my 15 year old dog near a park where a lot of these guys fly their rigs. I've never met one who wasn't thoughtful about what he was doing and respectful of others' safety. They don't fly over the kid's playground, they don't fly over the traffic on the surrounding streets. They're human beings. A lot of them bring their kids and teach them the same appropriate behavior, while getting the kids interested in a cool hobby.

panic: kernel trap (ignored)

Working...