Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Sensational! (Score 1) 376

Not only is she 9 years old, but she never actually SUCCESSFULLY pirated anything. She never broke any law.

Says who?

Says TFA:

Having failed in her quest to put enough money in her piggy bank to buy the latest album from local multi-platinum-selling songstress Chisu, in 2011 she turned to the Internet, first via Google and then The Pirate Bay.

The girl’s father said the resulting downloads didn’t work so the following day they went to the store to buy music. Nevertheless, this week’s police visit shows that CIAPC mean business, no matter how young the targets or whether or not they also buy music.

If the songs didn't work, it's probably a result of the actually not having downloaded the music, but a more malicious piece of data.

Comment Re:Sensational! (Score 5, Informative) 376

Not only is she 9 years old, but she never actually SUCCESSFULLY pirated anything. She never broke any law.

Furthermore, her father took her to the store and actually PAID FOR THE CONTENT the very next day. 600 Euros in damages for a crime that wasn't committed claiming damages that were.... what? How were they damaged? They didn't even lose a sale. So I guess this whole thing is bollocks then, and there should be no reason for them to raid a home and start taking things on a whim.

Comment Re:Religion is much worse (Score 1) 345

No True Scotsman is a crappy fallacy people knowing nothing of church history

Actually, it's not a "crappy fallacy." It's a legitimate one. You're twisting the word Christian the wrong way here.

First off, Christian basically means any religion that believes in Christ as the son of God (Abrahamic). This could mean Roman Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Baptist, and I'm sure many more. They are all still Christians. If you think of it this way, dissent means nothing. Many people can "dissent" all they want, but if they aren't separating the label they use to describe themselves, they can still be committing the fallacy of No True Scotsman.

Take for example the following scenario:
Person A is eccentric and extremist in his opinions on religion. He takes the bible as literal fact and believes that Christ is his saviour and that gays are evil and sex before marriage deserves to have you stoned on the city wall.
Person B is tolerant, thinks that while Christ is his saviour, that we should still love everybody and that most of the bible consists of old traditions that aren't in line with proper human values because it was formed by a culture that existed long before much of our current knowledge.

The requisite to being a Christian is accepting Christ as the Son of God (in this case, we'll say Christ as a saviour of our sins, or a messiah is equivalent to that). Both persons are therefore Christian. If either Person A or Person B accuse the other of not being true Christians because they don't share the same opinions on all topics that their religion or system of beliefs stems from, then they are committing a fallacy where they are changing the definition of the predicate being a Christian to suit their personal opinion. That is the No True Scotsman fallacy. It's got nothing to do with history, it's everything to do with logic and the meaning of a term.

But religious people I know feed the hungry, house the homeless, and give a caring ear to people locked away in prison who need someone stable and normal to talk to. And part of that is because of their religion. Not because they feel obligated to do these things to earn God Points, to be redeemed for quality of housing in the afterlife. But because they believe that it's the right thing to do -- that they are merely passing on the love they recieve from their creator to those around them who really need it.

Part of it may be due to religion, however, I feel that this is simply confusing correlation with causation. From the very beginning humans knew that they needed the strength of a community to survive. Helping out your community (religious or otherwise) has long been the "right thing to do." They don't need to pass on any love of any creator for this to be possible. Our current survival is proof enough to show that humans use communities and cultures to survive, and that taking care of your neighbour means that he/she will eventually take care of you (in the broadest sense, some neighbours are dicks). This is the very concept behind social safety nets.

But if you're claiming "99% of religious people are insane" it would suggest that maybe you are not thinking of those people as human beings, merely wrong-thinking automatons.

An automaton can't even be insane by definition, since insanity is defined as being in a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill. If they were automatons, they would always be in normal perception or behaviour relative to their default state. However, if we go under the assumption that people who believe in deities are in a state of mind where they cannot perceive things normally (or objectively, aka as things are), then "99% of religious people are insane" is a true statement. I don't personally believe that 99% of religious people are actually insane, but history tends to show that religion has been more or less used as an authoritarian device to control or direct people. So while I can't say that religion makes everyone insane, or evil-oriented automatons, I can say that there is a vast majority of religion that is used to control and subjugate other humans. And quite frankly, that's exactly the kind of thing only a human could do.

Comment Re:Religion is much worse (Score 1) 345

Because religion is already intertwined with law/politics. Just like how tobacco, alcohol or caffeine are legal substances. If you want something to be legal nowadays you need to already have it established. Imagine if 50 Shades of Grey was written instead of the bible, porn would be what influenced law/politics and religion would be frowned upon.

Be right back. I'm going to the nearest Chapters and then I'm going to go grab a time machine. This is gonna be good.

Comment Re:Spheres (Score 4, Informative) 53

Probabilistically speaking, the position of electrons is probably what results in a sphere shape. Electrons move too fast to be in any single position at any point in time (at least, deterministically), so it appears as a spherical/elliptical cloud around the nucleus at a given energy level.

Comment Re:Except that... (Score 3, Informative) 383

Google doesn't want you to opt out of ads on the Nexus, because a lot of their income comes from ads.

That would make more sense if Google actually had unblockable ads anywhere in their devices. I have both a Galaxy Nexus and Nexus 7, and neither has ads anywhere outside of individual apps.

And honestly, you don't sound as if you really know what you're talking about, since it's trivial to root Nexus devices and subsequently install ad-blockers across all applications. The same can't be said for all of Amazon's devices.

Comment Re:The real burden is ... (Score 1) 404

It's an OS ... it doesn't kick puppies or kitties, scare little children, cause curvature of the spine, or make weeds grow in your yard.

I would actually argue that curvature of the spine is a natural detriment to using tablets/mobile interfaces. Also, I've been on my computer so long that there's no longer enough nutrients in my yard to even support weeds, so your point is moot.

Comment Re:Just a theory? (Score 2) 1218

This.

Evolution itself is a fact. The theory of evolution explains why and/or how the theory of evolution occurs. The fact that it does occur is set in stone, and can be repeatedly proven both in the lab and in the field, empirically. The theory part explains the why/how, but that doesn't stop it from being true.

Same with gravity. Gravity is explained by the general theory of relativity. Gravity itself is a fact. The Earth attracts your mass and you "fall" into it. Explaining why/how that occurs is in the theory. I suppose it does get muddied up some since physical geodesy describes mathematically how, while relativity describes why, but both are valid.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every little picofarad has a nanohenry all its own. -- Don Vonada

Working...