Slashdot Mirror

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28997

Clearly the cause is Al Gore and his liberal whiners who are jelaous of the success of the hardworking oil industry... :)

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694

Currenly, we're at "In Progress".

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43014

That's not censorship! They're just making us a favor by highlighting all the good stuff.

Like "Species Of Blue-Green Algae Announces IPO".

SLM

Like the guy who always finds a way to say that he doesn't own a tv http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694. It probably would have been better if the guy stated the time period is terms that more of us can relate to rather than something sensitive like religion.

I'm shocked. Really I am. I do have a life. It involves watching TV, and ....

oh, I see.

High-Definition Television Promises Sharper Crap.

The other problem will be ME going postal when the impolite person sitting next to me yaks and yaks for 5 hours straight on a flight.

Reminds me of one of the funniest responses I've seen in The Onion's "What do you think" column, asking what people thought of the FCC's decision to review lifting the in-flight cell phone rule:

"Now the only thing left is to fill the cabin with ankle-deep brackish ice water, and air travel will be about perfect."

The other problem will be ME going postal when the impolite person sitting next to me yaks and yaks for 5 hours straight on a flight.

Reminds me of one of the funniest responses I've seen in The Onion's "What do you think" column, asking what people thought of the FCC's decision to review lifting the in-flight cell phone rule:

"Now the only thing left is to fill the cabin with ankle-deep brackish ice water, and air travel will be about perfect."

I Believe The Robots Are Our Future

they found in egypt

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29976

I really don't know why they express download speeds in such an outlandish way. End users do not "gigabits" ...gigglebits, maybe, but not gigabits... for anything, they use kB, MB, & GB.

107Gb/s = "107 gigabits per second"
13,696 MB/s = "13,696 megabytes per second"
13.375 GB/s = "13.375 gigabytes per second"

Source:
http://www.matisse.net/bitcalc/?input_amount=107&i nput_units=gigabits&notation=legacy

Divide by 8 to get the number that makes sense. The "little b" stands for bits, and there are 8 bits per byte; the "big B" stands for byte.

1B = 8b.

The byte is the amount of data you could store on a single coin if you had a code worked out placing it either heads up or heads down. Ones and zero's.

Source:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130 :-)

You're right, it has to be true; I read it in Wikipedia!

Herbert Kornfeld? I didn't know you posted to /.

Instead of trying to spin existing articles, I personally think that it's time for Slashdot editors to just start making shit up. This attempt at spin is pretty sad. Why not just make up an article that says, "Bill Gates went on a shooting spree today, killing 100 orphan children, before turning the weapon on himself".

Great article!

Fanboys are a national treasure. Their diligence to spending hours/days/years nurturing and cataloging their obsession provide a useful function for the rest of us. Like a beaver spending its life building and maintaining a dam, or an oyster taking a piece of dirt and slowly making a pearl, we benefit from the years of their hard work for the few short moments when we care.

I'm sure we all go through periods when we run across something cool and it keeps our interest for a few weeks. We develop an interest and we're grateful to find the web site of some guy who has obsessed about our new subject for most of his life. We satisfy our desire for learning about whatever the subject du jour is, and then we go about our lives. I for one appreciate the effort they put into their obsession.

For example, over the years, I've developed or rekindled an interest in random topics: the show "The Prisoner" (from the 1960s), Magic the Gathering (which I hadn't played for 10 years), the musician Donovan, and other oddball things. I thought it was cool that one quick search on the Web revealed information that probably took all of someone's free time for several years (reading biographies, attending fan conventions, and talking to other hardcore fans):

1. I know that from the opening sequence from the Prisoner describes both the desire to get secrets from the spy named Number 6 but was also a pun for conformity: "What do you want?" Was he saying "Information" or "In formation"? Neat.

2. I know that the rules for "banding" were changed three times for MTG. Nifty.

3. I know that Donovan sang on the song "Billion Dollar Babies" by Alice Cooper. And Jimmy Page from Led Zeppelin may or may not have played guitar on "Hurdy Gurdy Man", but John Paul Jones (the bassist from Led Zeppelin) did play bass on the song. Neato.

Could I have lived my life having never learned this info? Sure. Am I glad to learn this trivia? Yes. With fanboys, I can do both! Fanboys are like the Cliff Notes for millions of subjects, albeit disproportionately on Hobbits, lightsabers, or even Billy Joel.

I'm not mocking them, of course. I think it's funny because we're all obsessed about something or another -- they're called hobbies. For example, I probably seem to be a fanboy about some topics (I'll let the bored Slashdot reader sift through my previous posts to figure those out).

Anyway, here's to you, fanboys! Keep up the good work!

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28331 I still have Jarts from the 70s at my grandma's house, by the way. And they're still fun.

You, sir, must mean Intelligent Falling.

Neck straps, historically, haven't worked very well.

But this notion of people getting the majority of their news from places like this has got to stop. I know it sounds pretty cool and progressive to dismiss traditional media and show a preference for alternative sources, but it's gotten out of hand. TDS, The Onion, etc... They're jokes first and foremost. I'd bet that the people involved with them would be the first to tell you that. Again, this isn't to detract from their intelligence or the poignance of what they have to say -- but still, the joke comes first. Announcing to the world that this is how we keep ourselves informed is not gonna get us any street cred, and that alone is enough for everyone else to hate us.

Yeah, the "real" news outlets are far from stellar. But if you follow them you can have just as good of an idea as to what's going on in the world. If you so desire, you can even think about it, check multiple sources, and wade through the bullshit.

"Gather a mob, shoot the bureaucrats between the eyes" "The world would be a better place if this happened more frequently."

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/56093

Theoretical physics is no stranger to this kind of irresponsible behavior. Fortunately, it can be resolved: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/52324

Microsoft beat them to the zeros (and the ones) in 1988.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39133/

Bill Of Rights Pared Down To A Manageable Six.

The question of God is nonsensical because it is not falsifiable. The question of the existence of your keyboard is, given the context the basic assumption that what we actually observe is in fact there. If your premise is that nothing is testable because this could all be the dream of a red butterfly then all discussion as such is meaningless.

Why is such discussion meaningless? Discussion about the possibility that this is all the dream of a butterfly actually gives us a refreshing sense of perspective. If people were really aware that they could be just part of a butterfly dream, they might be considerably less arrogant.

Oh, and "not falsifiable" doesn't completely invalidate a question, even if we do accept the mass of assumptions you're starting with. Suppose I threw my keyboard in a ginormous box of junk. I could claim that I have a keyboard in there, and in theory, we can falsify it -- pour the box onto the floor and sift through the junk.

What if it's a whole junkyard? What if it's the whole universe?

And yet, it's not a nonsensical question. I need a keyboard, so I look through the box of junk. If I don't find one, it doesn't necessarily prove that the keyboard isn't there. But what if I do find a keyboard?

If we're starting with the same basic assumptions, we could, theoretically, get at least as much proof of the existence of God as we have for the existence of a keyboard.

Problem is, those attributes are mutually exclusive, and God is therefore a logical impossibility.

There are actually solutions to this problem that Christians may or may not agree with. For one possibility, read the Foundation series (by Asimov) -- it could be possible that God knows everything that can be known, and therefore, God knows the trend of the future better than any human could, and most certainly knows where we are likely to end up, but of course, free will means we could all theoretically go completely contrary to God's plan. We'd all just have to do something unexpected at once.

And in any case, God can intervene, and he can do this in ways which don't mess with free will, which is generally understood to be mental, not physical -- that is, we're free to blaspheme, but God is free to strike us down if we do. In a mankind-runs-away scenario, God can make corrections, from a relatively small scale (the angel on your shoulder, maybe) to a planet-wide scale (the flood).

That's just one possibility, though. It's a tricky problem, and this is part of why I don't believe -- it ends up sounding contrived.

Still, you're also operating on a few other hidden axioms, including logic. If P=NP, then God can exist, no matter what.

And you're right, the question is a silly one -- not nonsensical, just silly to spend all day thinking about unless it's your job. I only follow it because it interests me, and because I hope that one day we will be able to outgrow this delusion -- in any case, it gives me plenty of ammunition if an evangelist ever knocks on my door.

Reposting as "plain old text" -- that appeared on one line because I accidentally posted as "HTML Formatted". Oops.

I've heard this argument before.

You generally find, when you talk to agnostics, that their response to the question "Does God exist" is "I don't think so." Let's face it -- if God came down [theonion.com] to clarify his existence and perhaps set us straight, the hard Atheists would be the first on the scene. If you're really intellectually honest, you'll be looking for both evidence that this is fake (Look at that man behind the curtain!) and evidence that it's real (That bush is on fire, but the leaves are still green!)

And of course, nothing would ever be conclusive enough. We were lied to as children, first about Santa, and then about God. As adults, it will be much harder for us to accept either. And yet, of course we'd be curious if we heard jingle bells on the roof.

Now, atheists often argue that without any evidence for a position, we shouldn't believe it. Therefore, since we have no evidence for God, we shouldn't believe at all -- but it doesn't mean you have to disbelieve, and shut your eyes if God ever appears.

So, the argument goes, "An agnostic is someone who is ignorant of what an atheist is." I'd argue the converse, as well: "An atheist is someone who is ignorant of what an agnostic is." I am, in fact, agnostic about everything -- but that doesn't mean I have to operate, day in and day out, with "I'm not sure". Having opinions and expectations is fine, so long as you're prepared for them to be wrong -- "I think so" or "I don't think so" is perfectly acceptable, and is, in fact, what any intellectually honest atheist would say.

Throughout my daily life, I operate on a set of useful assumptions, and I speak and act as if they were true. Linux, as much as it sucks, is the best operating system we've got right now -- and I don't have to do a cop-out of "At least, I think so, but maybe Bill's right?"

I act as if my assumptions were true, because it'd be absurd to be questioning them every second of the day. "Am I really breathing, or do I just think I am? Will I still pass out if I hold my breath too long? Let's find out..."

What makes me agnostic, and what makes any reasonable atheist a closet agnostic, is that I am prepared to let go of any of my assumptions. Not at the drop of a hat, mind you -- I'm still skeptical -- but given sufficient evidence, I may be forced to operate on a new assumption. For instance, I used to assume that everyone used Windows because no one knew about Linux -- now I realize I was young and stupid. I currently assume the Earth is mostly full of molten rock, but given sufficient evidence, I could be convinced that it's full of molten custard.

And yes, I include in my set of assumptions the assumption that it's logical to see the world as a set of assumptions, not a set of beliefs.

If that makes me naive, well... I'm proud to be naive. Better to be naive and curious than rigid and dogmatic.

If this sounds like you, then we're really just arguing semantics. Assumption, belief. Atheist, agnostic. Potayto, potahto.

I've heard this argument before. You generally find, when you talk to agnostics, that their response to the question "Does God exist" is "I don't think so." Let's face it -- if God came down to clarify his existence and perhaps set us straight, the hard Atheists would be the first on the scene. If you're really intellectually honest, you'll be looking for both evidence that this is fake (Look at that man behind the curtain!) and evidence that it's real (That bush is on fire, but the leaves are still green!) And of course, nothing would ever be conclusive enough. We were lied to as children, first about Santa, and then about God. As adults, it will be much harder for us to accept either. And yet, of course we'd be curious if we heard jingle bells on the roof. Now, atheists often argue that without any evidence for a position, we shouldn't believe it. Therefore, since we have no evidence for God, we shouldn't believe at all -- but it doesn't mean you have to disbelieve, and shut your eyes if God ever appears. So, the argument goes, "An agnostic is someone who is ignorant of what an atheist is." I'd argue the converse, as well: "An atheist is someone who is ignorant of what an agnostic is." I am, in fact, agnostic about everything -- but that doesn't mean I have to operate, day in and day out, with "I'm not sure". Having opinions and expectations is fine, so long as you're prepared for them to be wrong -- "I think so" or "I don't think so" is perfectly acceptable, and is, in fact, what any intellectually honest atheist would say. Throughout my daily life, I operate on a set of useful assumptions, and I speak and act as if they were true. Linux, as much as it sucks, is the best operating system we've got right now -- and I don't have to do a cop-out of "At least, I think so, but maybe Bill's right?" I act as if my assumptions were true, because it'd be absurd to be questioning them every second of the day. "Am I really breathing, or do I just think I am? Will I still pass out if I hold my breath too long? Let's find out..." What makes me agnostic, and what makes any reasonable atheist a closet agnostic, is that I am prepared to let go of any of my assumptions. Not at the drop of a hat, mind you -- I'm still skeptical -- but given sufficient evidence, I may be forced to operate on a new assumption. For instance, I used to assume that everyone used Windows because no one knew about Linux -- now I realize I was young and stupid. I currently assume the Earth is mostly full of molten rock, but given sufficient evidence, I could be convinced that it's full of molten custard. And yes, I include in my set of assumptions the assumption that it's logical to see the world as a set of assumptions, not a set of beliefs. If that makes me naive, well... I'm proud to be naive. Better to be naive and curious than rigid and dogmatic. If this sounds like you, then we're really just arguing semantics. Assumption, belief. Atheist, agnostic. Potayto, potahto.

I too know that God is beyond our imagining and comprehension. That is why, if such a God would reveal Himself to us, he could only tell us a small part and ask us to simply BELIEVE His message. This is exactly what He has done.

He could certainly tell us more. And if he did, belief in God might be more like belief in Sunrises -- a reasonable default position. As it is, God has left us in a reality where the sane default is disbelief -- if you must believe or not believe, it makes more sense to not believe.

I am not judging that action, and it does not make me angry at God (if he exists), but that is the reality that I find myself in. The most natural leap of faith for me to make would be straight to hard atheism.

Faith and logic are not in an exclusive OR relationship. Faith begins where logic cannot follow.

That would actually fit an exclusive OR, but you're right -- you can actually have both faith and logic. For instance, I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, and at least a few logical arguments to support that belief. However, even without recalling those arguments at the moment, I can have that faith.

And yet, that is the extent of my faith -- an assumption that appears to work. When I am truly honest with myself, I realize that I cannot possibly know anything, and must be prepared for any of my assumptions to change.

I, personally, do not have faith where logic cannot follow. I have curiosity and an open mind, but not faith.

You mention that believing is something you CHOOSE not to do. All machines we make, including computers are deterministic and therefore cannot love.

Computers are not necessarily any more or less deterministic than we are. What is special about our own bodies?

If your computer expresses love to you, it is meaningless, but when your significant other does, it pleases you and warms your heart.

I think if my computer was able to truly express love to me -- and not simply duplicate other expressions of love (for instance, an email from my significant other) -- it would probably frighten me, but I would have to be touched.

Why would it be meaningless? At what point do we say a creature has free will, or that its love has meaning?

For that matter, can't love have meaning even if we are all deterministic? If you discovered that you are so predictable that it was inevitable that you'd fall in love with a particular person, would you feel any less love for them at that realization?

I am not talking about rape or coercion, but I know women who like to talk about fate and destiny. One tells me she doesn't know why God sent me to her, but she's grateful that he did. Does she love me any less at the thought that I had no choice in the matter -- that God sent me to her? You could say it's her choice, but then, she says she can't help but love me.

So far you have CHOSEN your own will over that of God.

I know my own will. If my will exists, then I choose it. If my will does not exist, then I have no choice but to say "I choose my own will" anyway, so there is no point in debating that.

I do not know the will of God, and I don't believe you do, either. Until we do know, it makes sense to choose my own will.

God respects that choice and will allow you to spend eternity apart from Him. That state of being separate, away from God, estranged from Him forever, is called Hell.

I call it freedom.

I sound like Milton's Lucifer, don't I? But I stand by it. I am more free for choosing my own will than to willingly become a slave to a deity.

It is also possible to love God without submitting to his will. Just look at any healthy relationship -- we no longer expect the woman to submit to the

I too know that God is beyond our imagining and comprehension. That is why, if such a God would reveal Himself to us, he could only tell us a small part and ask us to simply BELIEVE His message. This is exactly what He has done.

He could certainly tell us more. And if he did, belief in God might be more like belief in Sunrises -- a reasonable default position. As it is, God has left us in a reality where the sane default is disbelief -- if you must believe or not believe, it makes more sense to not believe.

I am not judging that action, and it does not make me angry at God (if he exists), but that is the reality that I find myself in. The most natural leap of faith for me to make would be straight to hard atheism.

Faith and logic are not in an exclusive OR relationship. Faith begins where logic cannot follow.

That would actually fit an exclusive OR, but you're right -- you can actually have both faith and logic. For instance, I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, and at least a few logical arguments to support that belief. However, even without recalling those arguments at the moment, I can have that faith.

And yet, that is the extent of my faith -- an assumption that appears to work. When I am truly honest with myself, I realize that I cannot possibly know anything, and must be prepared for any of my assumptions to change.

I, personally, do not have faith where logic cannot follow. I have curiosity and an open mind, but not faith.

You mention that believing is something you CHOOSE not to do. All machines we make, including computers are deterministic and therefore cannot love.

Computers are not necessarily any more or less deterministic than we are. What is special about our own bodies?

If your computer expresses love to you, it is meaningless, but when your significant other does, it pleases you and warms your heart.

I think if my computer was able to truly express love to me -- and not simply duplicate other expressions of love (for instance, an email from my significant other) -- it would probably frighten me, but I would have to be touched.

Why would it be meaningless? At what point do we say a creature has free will, or that its love has meaning?

For that matter, can't love have meaning even if we are all deterministic? If you discovered that you are so predictable that it was inevitable that you'd fall in love with a particular person, would you feel any less love for them at that realization?

I am not talking about rape or coercion, but I know women who like to talk about fate and destiny. One tells me she doesn't know why God sent me to her, but she's grateful that he did. Does she love me any less at the thought that I had no choice in the matter -- that God sent me to her? You could say it's her choice, but then, she says she can't help but love me.

So far you have CHOSEN your own will over that of God.

I know my own will. If my will exists, then I choose it. If my will does not exist, then I have no choice but to say "I choose my own will" anyway, so there is no point in debating that.

I do not know the will of God, and I don't believe you do, either. Until we do know, it makes sense to choose my own will.

God respects that choice and will allow you to spend eternity apart from Him. That state of being separate, away from God, estranged from Him forever, is called Hell.

I call it freedom.

I sound like Milton's Lucifer, don't I? But I stand by it. I am more free for choosing my own will than to willingly become a slave to a deity.

It is also possible to love God without submitting to his will. Just look at any healthy relationship -- we no longer expect the woman to submit to the

Yes it is:

See Onion article.

Is this you?

Do a bit of research into how He works. Then ask Him, directly and out loud, and see if He answers somehow.

I believe I've done this, I may do it again sometime. The only answer I've gotten is a voice in my head, but it's awfully close to other voices I've identified as myself, or parts of myself.

And by the way, I would very much love to see something like this happen. Not because I want to believe, but because I think all of us, believers or not, would become better people.

This is nothing new. There was a museum dedicated to Noah's Flood in Tulsa, Oklahoma over a decade ago (sorry no link). Thankfully it went away. The building is now a daycare center. Most recently Tulsa almost had a creation exhibit at it's zoo. Darwin be praised and rationality prevailed. At least temporarily.

At least Tulsa is important enough for even The Onion to make fun of: Creationist Museum Acquires 5,000-Year-Old T. Rex Skeleton.

" "Spirit has been displaying some anomalous behavior," said Project Manager John Callas, who noted the rover's unsuccessful attempts to flip itself over and otherwise damage its scientific instruments. "And the thousand or so daily messages of 'STILL NO WATER' really point to a crisis of purpose." "

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54360

From the article: "Originally, he wanted to build a hyperbolic chamber," [His mother] said, adding that she promptly said no.

Now that would have been the best science project ever.

Unless she meant to say hyperbaric chamber. Which is way less interesting.

Look it up.

It's only the most amazing invention ever. Geesh!

hyperbole /haprbli/
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as "to wait an eternity."

I can't believe you folks are so totally, utterly, abjectly disconnected from the literature!

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30990

Naw... I think it would be more like this.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30990

This is a hyperbolic chamber: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30990

Please see: Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeros

with so few things to do... the probe is beginning to do weird things.

here's why... (Pops new) We now HAVE an internal arms struggle in this country.

...Spirit's attitude improved:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54360

Seriously, the last message that it sent ('OVERPRICED SPACE-ROOMBA AWAITING MORE BULLSHIT ORDERS') was really uncalled for.

I threw out my TV in 2000

Area man? Is that you?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28694?

Just like Gillette's CEO : Fuck Everything, We're Doing Five Blades