Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... (Score 1) 356

My position is that anyone can have any opinion they want, and that the significance of that opinion to others depends on whatever level of trust the claimer can command. This puts some people in a de facto privileged position. This can be rational (e.g. privileging an oncologist's opinions on cancer over a layman's) and in other cases not (privileging a fellow mom's opinions about vaccines over an immunologist or toxicologist).

So my point is that you CAN make any of the claims you suggested, but your authority won't carry much weight because you're just a random bloke on the Internet. You would have to make a convincing argument. However even then there are lots of very credible-sounding arguments out there that don't sound credible to someone who has actual knowledge.

The bottom line is knowing the truth of any claim is quite difficult, particularly when it involves jargon. In general the judgment of someone who has spent some time studying an issue is more be trusted than what "stands to reason" in your own judgment. Even so, an expert should still be able to give a coherent defense of his positions.

So in the case of this frog meme, I have no particular reason to doubt ADL; however if it were important to me I would look at the evidence ADL puts forward in justification of their position. I do not necessarily agree with ADL on everything (e.g. on Muslims displaying tokens bearing the Shahada), but they have more than any other group tracked violent extremist groups and their affiliates and therefore are in at least a position to compare and contrast the symbols used. If, however, it were an organization like Kahane Chai, I would feel no particular reason to look into their reasoning because they're a racist group. Life is simply to short to treat a source that is consistently nonsense as if it might be credible.

Comment Re:Star of David used by Neo Nazis... (Score 1) 356

Well, actually technically speaking you're the one begging the question: you haven't established that either you or I enjoy some kind of privileged position in which we get to condemn other people for condemning language they don't like.

So by all means condemn them for calling things "hate speech", it's your right; but it's also their right.

Comment Re:I would try it. (Score 1) 124

Been there, done that. Basically had to go to the max dose of oxycontin just to take the edge off the pain.

This page you can see some pictures of the procedure and instruments people used on kidney stones in the 1600s. It seems unimaginable that anyone would subject themselves to that -- without anesthetic -- unless you've actually experienced it.

Comment Re:And Yawn! (Score 1) 17

A properly designed system shouldn't be highly dependent upon any kind of persistence layer, although if you follow the provider's example programs you'll tend to spread dependencies through your code. But a smart designer hides that all away deep down in some kind of abstraction.

A demonstration of exactly how little you are dependent on a vendor is probably a very good thing, if you're a big customer. Oh, we'll run *this* part of our product on the other guy's cloud service and boom. It happens. Shows the vendors who's boss.

Comment Re:Rich people toy at best due to energy costs (Score 1) 134

No you're just making that up. The energy to run a horseless carriage wasn't unprecedented: it was about the same needed to run a conventional carriage. You're correct that a manufacturing line and economies of scale were the major factor in making cars affordable though, because the cost of manufacture was what made cars rich people toys for over a hundred years before the model A came out, not energy costs.

Comment Re:"Shitposting" is fraud, not speech (Score 1) 637

Gonna need a source for that. Consumer-led boycotts for political reasons in general are a neutral tool that could be used for good or bad. There have only been a few we'd consider bad today, most were explicitly organized by governments or political parties. Whether a boycott against Palmer Luckey or anyone else ends up on the wrong side of history depends on the intent and effect of the boycott, not on the simple fact that it is a boycott based on objections to an individuals' political donations.

Again, would you consider a boycott of my hypothetical supermarket where John Smith, ISIS donor, works to be evil? Answer that plainly for me please, and maybe we can get to the root of your assertion that this type of action is categorically evil.

Slashdot Top Deals

: is not an identifier

Working...