Just look at the moderation points in this thread to see that.
Slashdot moderation is so fucked up, using it as any sort of a point to support your argument is immensely foolish.
There isn't much time for teaching real science.
Agreed. There isn't much time for teaching real, useful things in class. That's why we should teach neither creation nor evolution, because covering this area at all is a pointless waste of time.
No, you fail. All Enderandrew is saying is that equating flat earth to creationist beliefs is misleading, because one is demonstrably false, and the other is not. Nothing more. Don't blame your lack of reading comprehension on him.
Of course the burden of proof is on the people advocating the theory.
Not quite. The burden of proof is on the people advocating the theory, or those claiming it to be outright false (instead of merely unproven). In other words, saying it's true requires proof, saying it's false requires proof, saying "We don't know" doesn't require proof.
He's saying something which is demonstrably false carries less weight than something which is not demonstrable at all, contrary to your claim that flat earth and creation theories have equal weight. And he's right.
No matter what we get this election, we're going to get a douchebag who feels they're above the law in office. Once we've descended to that low level of quality in our elected officials, why quibble about the rest?
You don't seem to realize it, but you have half of the key to why these debates are meaningless. Both origin theories require pure, blind faith. Either there is a god who one day popped into existence (or always existed), or there is a universe that one day popped into existence (or always existed).
The people who smugly assert that evolution is superior because it's based on fact need to think things through for a second. Both theories are founded in faith at the very beginning, so what happens after that is rather irrelevant.
Bullshit. Every parent has the right to teach, or not teach, their children whatever they choose. This is one of the components of parenting. And, for that matter, you do not have the right to live in a society of $classification. You have the right to live in society. If you don't like this country, pick a different one, or try to convince people in this one to change it. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like that don't hurt anyone.
Nit-pick: you have no legitimate basis to definitively state that there is no god watching over us. Much as it cannot be proven, it also cannot be disproven. So no, he hasn't been lied to. People who hold religious belief aren't a bunch of monsters trying to subvert the independent thought of everyone they meet (contrary to/. popular opinion), they hold an honest belief that there is a god up there, and tell others about it. BIG difference.
Doesn't anyone trust their own judgment over others'? I have yet to run across the person who doesn't... even if we take someone else's advice, that's still exercising our own judgment that what they said is sound. If we admit ignorance, and ask for more information, we still have a threshold of plausibility that must be met before we accept that information. Everyone values their own judgment most highly.
Whoever modded it Troll has an understanding that there have been noteworthy scientists who were religious. You, apparently, do not, given your blanket (and wrong) statement that teaching religion makes people dumber and ignorant of science.
Furthermore, the whole thing is a big fucking waste of time. We are here, it doesn't matter how we got here. Use the time to teach the kids something that actually matters, and let them investigate our origins on their own time if they want, not as part of their basic education.
Would not the worst people then be those that claim to do so only for political expediency? Should we not seek to elect those that generally tell us what they are actually thinking?
Yes on both counts. That doesn't mean that a ton of people won't disagree, though. We have some real morons in the US.
I can safely say that you're an idiot at this point.
First: I don't think an endorsement from/. is going to help them, and never did. Second: at no point did I say something to insinuate that/. is full of great minds (indeed, watch any Apple topic here, and you can see proof to the contrary).
And you still are persisting in this astounding contradiction: these places will have tons of business, but will have that without advertising. How, exactly, do you propose that their customers hear about them? Remember, word of mouth advertising is still advertising. I'll save you a step: they can't get customers unless they advertise in some form or other. Every new business needs to advertise.
The DMCA allows you, as I recall, to circumvent copy protection to make personal-use backups. What it disallows is helping others to circumvent said copy protection.
Not that this is reasonable in the least, of course, but cracking your own movies isn't illegal yet.
Obama's vote in the Senate record suggests otherwise.
but obama and his group had to vote for the bill...
The claim of cowards and liars throughout history. Obama voted for telecom immunity, and has shown what sort of man he is. Sad that you're too taken in by his lies to realize it.
Mods don't have the power it sounds like you think they have. I would read the FAQ section on moderation for more information on how the moderation system here works.
Why's isn't Chrome's source readily available? Instead, "Chromium", the OSS project that Chrome is "based off of", is open. That's a distinct difference to me. Is no one else skeptical?
Oh, for the love of God. Either you believe that they're actually providing the source or you don't. If Google was explicitly saying that this was the Chrome source code, you'd be crying, "But how do we know that's the source they really built it from????". Ridiculous.
Not really. I haven't used a great many browsers out there, just IE and Firefox, but Chrome easily bests both of those. I think it's significant if Google puts out a browser that beats both of the major browsers by a large margin, but that's just me.
That is the whole point. They should be aware of what they put in their code. What if they just copied and pasted some code that would delete your files?
Those are completely different examples. These people are programmers, they aren't expected to pay attention to the legal terms. They copy-pasted a license in, good enough for them. If there was code that would delete your files, they'd be expected to realize that, because that's, you know, their job. Legal stuff isn't their job.
Good news, everyone! Those asinine morons over at the Box network who canceled us were fired for incompetence! Not just fired, but beaten up... and pretty badly, too! In fact, most of them died from their injuries!
Slashdot Mirror
Just look at the moderation points in this thread to see that.
Slashdot moderation is so fucked up, using it as any sort of a point to support your argument is immensely foolish.
There isn't much time for teaching real science.
Agreed. There isn't much time for teaching real, useful things in class. That's why we should teach neither creation nor evolution, because covering this area at all is a pointless waste of time.
You fail.
No, you fail. All Enderandrew is saying is that equating flat earth to creationist beliefs is misleading, because one is demonstrably false, and the other is not. Nothing more. Don't blame your lack of reading comprehension on him.
Of course the burden of proof is on the people advocating the theory.
Not quite. The burden of proof is on the people advocating the theory, or those claiming it to be outright false (instead of merely unproven). In other words, saying it's true requires proof, saying it's false requires proof, saying "We don't know" doesn't require proof.
He's saying something which is demonstrably false carries less weight than something which is not demonstrable at all, contrary to your claim that flat earth and creation theories have equal weight. And he's right.
No matter what we get this election, we're going to get a douchebag who feels they're above the law in office. Once we've descended to that low level of quality in our elected officials, why quibble about the rest?
You don't seem to realize it, but you have half of the key to why these debates are meaningless. Both origin theories require pure, blind faith. Either there is a god who one day popped into existence (or always existed), or there is a universe that one day popped into existence (or always existed).
The people who smugly assert that evolution is superior because it's based on fact need to think things through for a second. Both theories are founded in faith at the very beginning, so what happens after that is rather irrelevant.
Bullshit. Every parent has the right to teach, or not teach, their children whatever they choose. This is one of the components of parenting. And, for that matter, you do not have the right to live in a society of $classification. You have the right to live in society. If you don't like this country, pick a different one, or try to convince people in this one to change it. You don't get to outlaw things you don't like that don't hurt anyone.
You've been lied to, probably all your life.
Nit-pick: you have no legitimate basis to definitively state that there is no god watching over us. Much as it cannot be proven, it also cannot be disproven. So no, he hasn't been lied to. People who hold religious belief aren't a bunch of monsters trying to subvert the independent thought of everyone they meet (contrary to /. popular opinion), they hold an honest belief that there is a god up there, and tell others about it. BIG difference.
Doesn't anyone trust their own judgment over others'? I have yet to run across the person who doesn't... even if we take someone else's advice, that's still exercising our own judgment that what they said is sound. If we admit ignorance, and ask for more information, we still have a threshold of plausibility that must be met before we accept that information. Everyone values their own judgment most highly.
Whoever modded it Troll has an understanding that there have been noteworthy scientists who were religious. You, apparently, do not, given your blanket (and wrong) statement that teaching religion makes people dumber and ignorant of science.
Furthermore, the whole thing is a big fucking waste of time. We are here, it doesn't matter how we got here. Use the time to teach the kids something that actually matters, and let them investigate our origins on their own time if they want, not as part of their basic education.
Would not the worst people then be those that claim to do so only for political expediency? Should we not seek to elect those that generally tell us what they are actually thinking?
Yes on both counts. That doesn't mean that a ton of people won't disagree, though. We have some real morons in the US.
I can safely say that you're an idiot at this point.
First: I don't think an endorsement from /. is going to help them, and never did. Second: at no point did I say something to insinuate that /. is full of great minds (indeed, watch any Apple topic here, and you can see proof to the contrary).
And you still are persisting in this astounding contradiction: these places will have tons of business, but will have that without advertising. How, exactly, do you propose that their customers hear about them? Remember, word of mouth advertising is still advertising. I'll save you a step: they can't get customers unless they advertise in some form or other. Every new business needs to advertise.
If an organization does this type of work, 1st they're not going to advertise it. 2nd they'll have so much work, they don't need to advertise.
And how will they have achieved the ability to get so many customers without advertising first, oh great and wise master?
FTFA: "Microsoft has still sold more Xbox 360 consoles than Sony to date."
Damn, I never saw that coming!!!
I do not want to host family parties (nor play mario #122 or other kiddie games)
First off: Mario is not a "kiddie" game. It's a platformer, but that doesn't make it childish.
Second: Zelda, Smash Bros, Super Paper Mario, Metroid Prime 3, and Mario Kart are kiddie games? Damn, why didn't someone tell me?
Are you one of those gamers who defines "kiddie" to be "doesn't include lots of gore and/or swearing"?
Inverse square root... you mean squaring it?
The DMCA allows you, as I recall, to circumvent copy protection to make personal-use backups. What it disallows is helping others to circumvent said copy protection.
Not that this is reasonable in the least, of course, but cracking your own movies isn't illegal yet.
You could be right. I just know that my Wii (purchased June 07) supported WPA out of the box.
democrats are not supporting it.
Obama's vote in the Senate record suggests otherwise.
but obama and his group had to vote for the bill...
The claim of cowards and liars throughout history. Obama voted for telecom immunity, and has shown what sort of man he is. Sad that you're too taken in by his lies to realize it.
The DS doesn't support WPA (which is bad), but the Wii does (and is the more recent of the two systems), so your accusation is a bit off-base.
Mods don't have the power it sounds like you think they have. I would read the FAQ section on moderation for more information on how the moderation system here works.
Oh, and, you must be new here. ;)
Why's isn't Chrome's source readily available? Instead, "Chromium", the OSS project that Chrome is "based off of", is open. That's a distinct difference to me. Is no one else skeptical?
Oh, for the love of God. Either you believe that they're actually providing the source or you don't. If Google was explicitly saying that this was the Chrome source code, you'd be crying, "But how do we know that's the source they really built it from????". Ridiculous.
Not really. I haven't used a great many browsers out there, just IE and Firefox, but Chrome easily bests both of those. I think it's significant if Google puts out a browser that beats both of the major browsers by a large margin, but that's just me.
That is the whole point. They should be aware of what they put in their code. What if they just copied and pasted some code that would delete your files?
Those are completely different examples. These people are programmers, they aren't expected to pay attention to the legal terms. They copy-pasted a license in, good enough for them. If there was code that would delete your files, they'd be expected to realize that, because that's, you know, their job. Legal stuff isn't their job.
A mistake? Yes. Understandable? No.
Only if you're completely unreasonable.
Good news, everyone! Those asinine morons over at the Box network who canceled us were fired for incompetence! Not just fired, but beaten up... and pretty badly, too! In fact, most of them died from their injuries!