Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:agnostic atheist (Score 1) 755

by tom17 (#48707303) Attached to: Science Cannot Prove the Existence of God

That's because I don't believe if a god(s) exist or not.

Firstly, that sentence doesn't parse. You can't "not believe if something exists or not", it's like saying "I don't believe if the light is on or off" - you can only KNOW (or not know) if the light is on or off. You can believe it is on, or not believe it is on, or believe it is off, but you cannot believe that it's both on or off (ignoring Schroedingers experiments for now :) )

I think what you mean is - "That's because I don't know if a god(s) exists or not" - In this case, it is a statement of knowledge, not belief - i.e. Agnosticism.

Or maybe you mean "That's because I don't have an opinion on whether or not a god exists or not" (Not meaning to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand what you mean). If this is what you mean, then would I be correct in assuming that you have no belief that a god exists? If so then you are not a theist. If so, then you are by definition an atheist.

You may counter with "Yes, I have no belief that a god exists, but I also have no belief that a god does not exist", but this would still leave you as an atheist due to the first part of your sentence "I have no belief that a god exists". If there was a word for 'belief that a god does not exist' (maybe there is one, I do not know) then you would be an a-that as well.

Poppycock. You can believe in one or more deities and still pray to none.

Yes, and you'd be a theist. However, without contradicting oneself, can you pray to a god without believing that one exists?

I mean, sure, you could say the words of prayer, but if you don't believe there is a god, you aren't *really* praying.

Comment: Re:Dude, wait... (Score 2) 681

by tom17 (#48690407) Attached to: Neil DeGrasse Tyson Explains His Christmas Tweet

Surely by starting the tweet as he did - "On this day long ago, a child was born" - it automatically dismisses any chance of it being about Jesus because, as discussed further up, every true Christian knows that the 25th is a celebration of Jesus' birth and not an anniversary.

If people wish to claim that the opening was an obvious misdirection, then they need to accept that Jesus was in fact born on that day. However, it seems to be the generally accepted stance that he was not...

Comment: Re:Sly (Score 1) 396

by tom17 (#48651525) Attached to: Google Proposes To Warn People About Non-SSL Web Sites

Weird, what versions of those browsers? I have IE9 here and it's pre-installed.

I have been using it, hassle free (with the CA cert pre-installed on Chrome,FF & IE) since 2011 now...

Something must have been afoot with your testing - I'm not blaming you - I just can't see how it wouldn't have worked a year ago based on my experience with default browsers...

Comment: Re:A question I hope someone can answer (Score 1) 54

by tom17 (#48554827) Attached to: POODLE Flaw Returns, This Time Hitting TLS Protocol

Unless your company/vendor forces you to use it externally, or will not provide said VM for internal sites.

I'm not agreeing that it's OK to use such a browser, just saying that it's not necessarily the users own fault. Companies can be idiots too when it comes to IT security.

Comment: Re:A question I hope someone can answer (Score 1) 54

by tom17 (#48554491) Attached to: POODLE Flaw Returns, This Time Hitting TLS Protocol

I don't know his exact situation, but it's possible that the company he works at has an app that only works with IE6. There used to be many apps like this.

If this is such a case, the fuckwad is the company (for not hiring developers to upgrade the app) or the vendor that supplies the app without upgrading it (Maybe the company is still to blame for not moving to a more current product, or maybe there isn't one). Either way, the user that is forced to stick with the crappy browser is not necessarily the problem.

Though he might be! :) - Rather than assuming and bashing, we should answer the question... Oh wait. Slashdot :)

Comment: Re:Sounds good to me (Score 1) 238

by tom17 (#48524739) Attached to: The Cost of the "S" In HTTPS

You are correct in your understanding.

You can also check your privacy just by looking at the certificate for any site you are visiting over HTTPS. Check the certificate authority and make sure it looks legitimate. If you are unsure, you could look the cert up using an online service and compare the online version and your local version.

They should match but there always caveats - Maybe the site is using different certs on different parts of a CDN that has its own server cert installed in browsers. CloudFare is a good example of this - they can create valid certs as they please since they partnered with GlobalSign.

But your VM method should be just fine, yeah :)

They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl Sagan

Working...