I have to imagine the quality of this music is pretty dismal?
Maybe if you're a dog or a bat, but for the majority of people it sounds fine. If you're listening to it through a pair of $30 earbuds, you aren't going to hear everything that's encoded in the file, period.
Besides, once you hit about 35 or so a lot of your hearing response at the upper and lower ranges is gone, never to return. That's a fact (a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless).
Damn few people over 40 can hear down to 30hz or 40hz or up past ~16000hz, and for a lot of people it comes earlier than that, based upon lifestyle and environment (listening to loud music frequently, shooting without proper ear protection, exposure to workplace noise, etc).
I suspect that a lot of self-styled audiophiles would fail miserably in double-blind tests of high-end equipment versus modest- or medium-range gear.
Instead of fixing the tens of thousands of bugs in Firefox, its much more fun making useless OS's, making computer languages and fucking up the UI.
Bingo.
Personally, I'd be happy if they just fixed the memory leak problem(s). (The ones that some people rabidly insist don't exist and/or aren't a problem.)
Just sitting with two tabs open and doing nothing, FF gradually expands to gobble up 2.2 gigs of RAM on my PC, whereupon it starts to lag horrifically, becomes unresponsive to scrolling, and starts refusing to display images. The only add-ons I have loaded are AdBlock and NoScript, that's it. Yet it steadily eats more and more memory until it's kill-and-restart time.
Cue all the people who will insist that this isn't a problem, the leaks have been fixed, it must be a bad add-on, etc etc etc.
Can you show that almost every person of that region and time has left a record that is still available?
No, but I would think that the central figure of a worldwide religion might leave a few traces, wouldn't you?
Remember, this was a guy who (supposedly) walked on water, fed 5,000 people with "five barley loaves and two small fish", who healed the sick, cured the blind, raised a man from the dead, healed lepers, and who then died and then came back to life.
But apparently none of that was noteworthy enough for anyone to jot down even a single note about. At the same time, however, the scribes and scholars of the time were busy recording the minutiae of everyday life...but not a single word about this amazing person, the "Son of God". Not. One. Fucking. Word.
Sorry, but I just can't suspend my disbelief that far.
Lots of theologians are perfectly comfortable with evolution as how God made plants and animals
And lots of them aren't. Which ones are right and which ones are wrong?
As I noted above, the Creation narrative in the first two chapters of Genesis clearly indicates that the work of creation was done in six, twenty-four-hour days. Evolution directly contradicts this and "denies God’s creative power". This has been one of the cornerstones of evolution-deniers for decades. You can't just dismiss it with some hand-waving about "reading the bible intelligently" and how "many" theologians accept evolution now (because apparently they've managed to twist their beliefs to accommodate it).
So again, which theologians are right and which ones are wrong? Does the bible contradict evolution, as many of the say, or does it NOT contradict evolution?
So, is it square root (100 is the square root of 10,000) or cube root (like the post said) or is it the square of the fifth root (100 compared to 100,000).
It's possible this Jesus person did go around preaching and claiming miracles
Then why isn't there even a single mention of him from that time? Not any mention or record of any kind from the time he supposedly existed, not a single one. Doesn't that seem just a little suspicious to you?
-
Thus, being a "composite" tale does not automatically de-existify Jesus (for lack of a better word).
No, it doesn't automatically de-existify him, but you have to admit that his supposed story is a damn near spot-on copy of many that came before him...again, doesn't that seem just a little coincidental?
There are absolutely no contemporaneous accounts that speak of Jesus. Not a single one. As far as the historical record is concerned he just did not exist. There's not a single carving, sculpture, poem, painting, drawing or mention of him from the time in which he supposedly lived.
There is not a single mention in him in military records or dispatches back to Rome (and surely anyone who could command huge gatherings of people in a potentially disruptive province should be of interest). He is not mentioned in the records of Herod’s court nor is he mentioned in the records of the Temple or by any Priests. Surely if he was believed by some to be a prophet and others to be a false prophet some mention of the ruckus he was causing in Judean civic and religious society should have been recorded. Some people like to point to the supposed letters of Pontius Pilate as evidence of Jesus’ life but these were a work of fiction.
Jesus is a composite figure assembled from many, many previous myths that all feature the same story line:
Horus was one of the many Egyptian Gods (3100 B.C.)
He had 12 disciples.
One was born of a virgin in a cave.
Like Jesus, his birth was announced via a star.
And three wise men showed up!
He was baptized when he was 30 by Anup the Baptizer.
He rose a guy from the dead and walked on water.
Lastly, he was crucified, buried like Jesus in a tomb, and resurrected.
Buddha, (563 B.C.)
Healed the sick
Walked on water.
Fed 500 men from one basket of cakes.
Taught a lot of the same things Jesus taught, including equality for all.
He spent three days in jail.
Was resurrected when he died.
Mithra, an ancient Zoroastrian deity with similarities to Jesus (2000 B.C.)
Virginal birth on December 25th.
Swaddled and laid in a manger.
Tended by shepherds in the manger.
He had 12 companions (or disciples).
Performed miracles.
Gave his own life to save the world.
Dead for three days, then resurrected.
Called “the Way, the Truth and the Light.”
Has his own version of a Eucharistic-style “Lord’s supper.”
Krishna, (around 3000 B.C.)
A Hindu God.
Born after his mom was impregnated by a God.
Angels, wise men, and shepherds were at his birth.
Guess what gifts they gave him? Gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
A jealous bad guy ordered the slaughter of all newborns, just as happened with Jesus.
If i could download Oreo's, that would mean I could download pretty much anything else I wanted, too? Hello Replicator!
I love Oreos, but I stopped eating them when I realized that the delicious white filling was whipped lard and sugar. It says so right on the labels, and when I read that I went "WHAAAAAAAAAAAAT???"
I might have one now and then, but as I chew it I can't help but think, "Lard mixed with sugar....lard mixed with sugar..." Ewww. Could there be a less healthy "food" to voluntarily ingest? They make pork rinds look positively beneficial.
In what way does it flatly contradict the Bible? Nothing in Genesis says how God created plants and animals.
Seriously? Why don't you ask some theologians, since they've been the ones claiming this Darwin started talking about evolution. But for starters....
The Creation narrative in the first two chapters of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, clearly indicates that the work of creation was done in six, twenty-four-hour days. Evolution directly contradicts this and "denies God’s creative power".
Evolution makes no allowance for a world-wide flood. The concept of uniformity that has dominated evolutionary thought declares that the present is the key to the past. In other words, the gradual processes of nature that we currently see slowly eroding seashores, reducing the height of mountains, and shaping the course of rivers, etc. happened in the past at the same rates we see today. Thus there is no need for a universal flood as described in the Bible. Yet Jesus clearly accepted Noah and the flood as historical fact.
Death was not a part of God's creation. Death is the result of God's curse on the Earth as a result of man's sin. God's future plan for the Earth removes this curse and eliminates death altogether. Evolution declares the opposite, that death is normal, natural and essential to advancing species.
Etc etc etc....theologians have decried the theory of evolution from the start, although some are now facing the fact that it is a fact, including the pope.
Then why give them moar power after the fact? Why protect them when they overstep their boundaries or screw up?
Who said either of those things should be done?
I'm the guy that always opts-out and makes the TSA goon pat me down, because he works for me, not the other way around. I've never suggested they should have more power or be protected when they overstep their boundaries.
Do the world a favor and leave science to properly credentialed scientists, and religious proclamations to the priests.
Yeah, well, thanks ever so much for the suggestion, but I think I'll just do what I want to instead of listening to some random crank like you on slashdot.
Now why don't you go back into your safe space and spend some time in your hug box, m'kay?
He thinks there wasn't a year zero because there is no way to represent zero in Roman numerals
Maybe you're hard of hearing, maybe you're hard of thinking. As I said, I don't worship him or anything he says. He's a smart person, but in the end he's just another guy. He can be wrong just like anyone else.
If you want to shout that you're a "science warrior", be my guest, but I've said no such thing. You're like a lot of the frothy, "I KNOW THE TRUTH" fucktards on slashdot, constantly putting words in other people's mouth and creatively reinterpreting what they write to misrepresent what they're saying. But it doesn't work that way, you'll have to try a much less dishonest strategy with me.
As for opposing YECs, I'll continue to do it regardless of whether or not it makes you uncomfortable or violates your safe space or whatever.
We all get that the devices are insecure but, they're incredibly handy, and they will sweep the world.
Yeah, and that's the problem, dumbass. They'll "sweep the world", and with it your credit cards, passwords, private photos, medical info, etc etc etc.
You know what else is "incredibly handy"? Crack cocaine. Try it sometime, it's amazingly handy. Don't worry about any pesky side effects, just focus on how damn handy it is.
You're an idiot if you think scientific credentials automatically makes you more rational than the craziest religious nut you can imagine. (I've got a qualifying sheepskin, for example, and I'll bet you think I'm a nut.)
First, I never said any such thing, and second, I don't know if you're a nut or not. You might be; there are lots of nuts with degrees.
-
You, for example, have a an incredibly distorted view of both science and religion. I'm just as bad.
Speak for yourself. I think I have a pretty damn good understanding of science and religion, which is why I mock religion for the con game it is.
-
All you're doing here, with your petty, hateful, remarks is to reinforce the beliefs of the few YEC's out there who belief that they're under attack from roving bands of atheists out to destroy their way of life.
First, I don't give a shit what the YECs believe, and second, they're correct: I am out to destroy their way of life, make no mistake about it. I'm a foe of bullshit and misinformation and if the YECs think I'm their enemy then that's one thing they managed to get right.
-
I'm referring to Tyson's absurd proclamation that we are "very likely" living in a simulation. To believe that we're living in a simulation necessitates that you also deny the material nature of our universe.
Guess what? I don't worship Neil DeGrasse Tyson or what he says. He's a smart guy (probably smarter than me) but that doesn't mean he's right about everything.
Even worse is that the claims of "the Bible is the direct word of God"
Lol, yeah....but which god?:)
Millions upon millions of people have worshiped thousands of different gods over the centuries, and most of them have fallen out of favor. Personally I like Anubis, that dude was awesome.
There's nothing in climate change theory that gets in the way of any mainstream religious beliefs.
Lots of people would disagree with you on that.
That's also what they say about evolution now, but for a long time it was opposed because it flatly contradicts much of the bible. My how things change...
Bifurcating all worldview positions into "Creationism" versus "science" will end up destroying your brain.
Then I guess it's a good thing I don't do that. Show me some evidence for the creationist 'theory' that fits the facts and I'll believe it. But facts and creationism are at odds from the get-go, just like the 'evidence' for a flat Earth. Everything contradicts it, EVERYTHING. Every fact and theory and finding we have is at odds with it.
-
"Creationism" is something you are using to reference "a belief in God + any position whatsoever".
Not at all. Creationism is about the origins of the universe and everything in it, and everything we know invalidates it as a viable theory.
-
Presented with a position that agreed with science in -every respect-, including all of every scientific point proposed as to evolutionary history, but held that an intelligent being caused the Big Bang, you would (per your willfully-misdirecting term) call it "Creationist" and reject it on that basis alone,
Again, not at all. Show me some real evidence that an intelligent being caused the Big Bang and I'll believe it. I've got no problem changing my mind when the evidence shows that I'm wrong or have been mislead. Unlike many people, I've no problem changing my beliefs when presented with facts and evidence that make sense. Creationism simply doesn't rise to that level. Neither does the theory that the Earth is flat.
-
You're consumed merely by your petty bias and whatever personal behavioral motivators are involved.
And this, my friends, is what we call "projection".:)
My "petty bias" is nothing more than an insistence on seeing some fucking facts and evidence rather than believing whatever some jackass in a robe tells me to believe.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to imagine the quality of this music is pretty dismal?
Maybe if you're a dog or a bat, but for the majority of people it sounds fine. If you're listening to it through a pair of $30 earbuds, you aren't going to hear everything that's encoded in the file, period.
Besides, once you hit about 35 or so a lot of your hearing response at the upper and lower ranges is gone, never to return. That's a fact (a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless).
Damn few people over 40 can hear down to 30hz or 40hz or up past ~16000hz, and for a lot of people it comes earlier than that, based upon lifestyle and environment (listening to loud music frequently, shooting without proper ear protection, exposure to workplace noise, etc).
I suspect that a lot of self-styled audiophiles would fail miserably in double-blind tests of high-end equipment versus modest- or medium-range gear.
Instead of fixing the tens of thousands of bugs in Firefox, its much more fun making useless OS's, making computer languages and fucking up the UI.
Bingo.
Personally, I'd be happy if they just fixed the memory leak problem(s). (The ones that some people rabidly insist don't exist and/or aren't a problem.)
Just sitting with two tabs open and doing nothing, FF gradually expands to gobble up 2.2 gigs of RAM on my PC, whereupon it starts to lag horrifically, becomes unresponsive to scrolling, and starts refusing to display images. The only add-ons I have loaded are AdBlock and NoScript, that's it. Yet it steadily eats more and more memory until it's kill-and-restart time.
Cue all the people who will insist that this isn't a problem, the leaks have been fixed, it must be a bad add-on, etc etc etc.
Can you show that almost every person of that region and time has left a record that is still available?
No, but I would think that the central figure of a worldwide religion might leave a few traces, wouldn't you?
Remember, this was a guy who (supposedly) walked on water, fed 5,000 people with "five barley loaves and two small fish", who healed the sick, cured the blind, raised a man from the dead, healed lepers, and who then died and then came back to life.
But apparently none of that was noteworthy enough for anyone to jot down even a single note about. At the same time, however, the scribes and scholars of the time were busy recording the minutiae of everyday life...but not a single word about this amazing person, the "Son of God". Not. One. Fucking. Word.
Sorry, but I just can't suspend my disbelief that far.
Lots of theologians are perfectly comfortable with evolution as how God made plants and animals
And lots of them aren't. Which ones are right and which ones are wrong?
As I noted above, the Creation narrative in the first two chapters of Genesis clearly indicates that the work of creation was done in six, twenty-four-hour days. Evolution directly contradicts this and "denies God’s creative power". This has been one of the cornerstones of evolution-deniers for decades. You can't just dismiss it with some hand-waving about "reading the bible intelligently" and how "many" theologians accept evolution now (because apparently they've managed to twist their beliefs to accommodate it).
So again, which theologians are right and which ones are wrong? Does the bible contradict evolution, as many of the say, or does it NOT contradict evolution?
So, is it square root (100 is the square root of 10,000) or cube root (like the post said) or is it the square of the fifth root (100 compared to 100,000).
Yes.
It's possible this Jesus person did go around preaching and claiming miracles
Then why isn't there even a single mention of him from that time? Not any mention or record of any kind from the time he supposedly existed, not a single one. Doesn't that seem just a little suspicious to you?
-
Thus, being a "composite" tale does not automatically de-existify Jesus (for lack of a better word).
No, it doesn't automatically de-existify him, but you have to admit that his supposed story is a damn near spot-on copy of many that came before him...again, doesn't that seem just a little coincidental?
Yeah 2 seconds after I posted my second message I found myself wishing for an edit feature...
This is slashdot, we don't go for all those commie-pinko futuristic hand-holding features from the 1990's.
I mean, if we let people edit their posts (even just during a 1-minute grace period), ohmygod where will it end??
Jesus never existed.
There are absolutely no contemporaneous accounts that speak of Jesus. Not a single one. As far as the historical record is concerned he just did not exist. There's not a single carving, sculpture, poem, painting, drawing or mention of him from the time in which he supposedly lived.
There is not a single mention in him in military records or dispatches back to Rome (and surely anyone who could command huge gatherings of people in a potentially disruptive province should be of interest). He is not mentioned in the records of Herod’s court nor is he mentioned in the records of the Temple or by any Priests. Surely if he was believed by some to be a prophet and others to be a false prophet some mention of the ruckus he was causing in Judean civic and religious society should have been recorded. Some people like to point to the supposed letters of Pontius Pilate as evidence of Jesus’ life but these were a work of fiction.
Jesus is a composite figure assembled from many, many previous myths that all feature the same story line:
Horus was one of the many Egyptian Gods (3100 B.C.)
He had 12 disciples.
One was born of a virgin in a cave.
Like Jesus, his birth was announced via a star.
And three wise men showed up!
He was baptized when he was 30 by Anup the Baptizer.
He rose a guy from the dead and walked on water.
Lastly, he was crucified, buried like Jesus in a tomb, and resurrected.
Buddha, (563 B.C.)
Healed the sick
Walked on water.
Fed 500 men from one basket of cakes.
Taught a lot of the same things Jesus taught, including equality for all.
He spent three days in jail.
Was resurrected when he died.
Mithra, an ancient Zoroastrian deity with similarities to Jesus (2000 B.C.)
Virginal birth on December 25th.
Swaddled and laid in a manger.
Tended by shepherds in the manger.
He had 12 companions (or disciples).
Performed miracles.
Gave his own life to save the world.
Dead for three days, then resurrected.
Called “the Way, the Truth and the Light.”
Has his own version of a Eucharistic-style “Lord’s supper.”
Krishna, (around 3000 B.C.)
A Hindu God.
Born after his mom was impregnated by a God.
Angels, wise men, and shepherds were at his birth.
Guess what gifts they gave him? Gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
A jealous bad guy ordered the slaughter of all newborns, just as happened with Jesus.
As someone said, "The bible is filled with equal parts of truth, history, and pizza."
'I love Oreos, but I stopped eating them when I realized that the delicious white filling was whipped lard and sugar. It says so right on the labels'
This comment takes the biscuit!
As long as the biscuit is filled with some sweet, sweet lard. MmmmmMmmmmmm.....
>the filling would be less "sweet white paste" and more "marshmallow creme" in consistency though. probably flavor as well.
Couldn't you just add some sweetened lard to firm it up?
Just out of curiosity, which health food did you think composed the filling?
I thought it was unicorn farts mixed with magic pixie dust, like the stuff inside Twinkies or a Ho-Ho. Boy, was I ever wrong.
If i could download Oreo's, that would mean I could download pretty much anything else I wanted, too? Hello Replicator!
I love Oreos, but I stopped eating them when I realized that the delicious white filling was whipped lard and sugar. It says so right on the labels, and when I read that I went "WHAAAAAAAAAAAAT???"
I might have one now and then, but as I chew it I can't help but think, "Lard mixed with sugar....lard mixed with sugar..." Ewww. Could there be a less healthy "food" to voluntarily ingest? They make pork rinds look positively beneficial.
But still, damn if they don't taste good....
But how do the Oreos fit through the tubes??
In what way does it flatly contradict the Bible? Nothing in Genesis says how God created plants and animals.
Seriously? Why don't you ask some theologians, since they've been the ones claiming this Darwin started talking about evolution. But for starters....
The Creation narrative in the first two chapters of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, clearly indicates that the work of creation was done in six, twenty-four-hour days. Evolution directly contradicts this and "denies God’s creative power".
Evolution makes no allowance for a world-wide flood. The concept of uniformity that has dominated evolutionary thought declares that the present is the key to the past. In other words, the gradual processes of nature that we currently see slowly eroding seashores, reducing the height of mountains, and shaping the course of rivers, etc. happened in the past at the same rates we see today. Thus there is no need for a universal flood as described in the Bible. Yet Jesus clearly accepted Noah and the flood as historical fact.
Death was not a part of God's creation. Death is the result of God's curse on the Earth as a result of man's sin. God's future plan for the Earth removes this curse and eliminates death altogether. Evolution declares the opposite, that death is normal, natural and essential to advancing species.
Etc etc etc....theologians have decried the theory of evolution from the start, although some are now facing the fact that it is a fact, including the pope.
....how do we know they're not actually using this supposed 'telescope' to signal the aliens so they can come here and vaporize our planet? Hmmm?
Then why give them moar power after the fact?
Why protect them when they overstep their boundaries or screw up?
Who said either of those things should be done?
I'm the guy that always opts-out and makes the TSA goon pat me down, because he works for me, not the other way around. I've never suggested they should have more power or be protected when they overstep their boundaries.
Do the world a favor and leave science to properly credentialed scientists, and religious proclamations to the priests.
Yeah, well, thanks ever so much for the suggestion, but I think I'll just do what I want to instead of listening to some random crank like you on slashdot.
Now why don't you go back into your safe space and spend some time in your hug box, m'kay?
He thinks there wasn't a year zero because there is no way to represent zero in Roman numerals
Maybe you're hard of hearing, maybe you're hard of thinking. As I said, I don't worship him or anything he says. He's a smart person, but in the end he's just another guy. He can be wrong just like anyone else.
If you want to shout that you're a "science warrior", be my guest, but I've said no such thing. You're like a lot of the frothy, "I KNOW THE TRUTH" fucktards on slashdot, constantly putting words in other people's mouth and creatively reinterpreting what they write to misrepresent what they're saying. But it doesn't work that way, you'll have to try a much less dishonest strategy with me.
As for opposing YECs, I'll continue to do it regardless of whether or not it makes you uncomfortable or violates your safe space or whatever.
We all get that the devices are insecure but, they're incredibly handy, and they will sweep the world.
Yeah, and that's the problem, dumbass. They'll "sweep the world", and with it your credit cards, passwords, private photos, medical info, etc etc etc.
You know what else is "incredibly handy"? Crack cocaine. Try it sometime, it's amazingly handy. Don't worry about any pesky side effects, just focus on how damn handy it is.
If it's connected to the internet directly, and it has no built in security apart from "admin" "password", it's part of a botnet or soon will be.
I agree....the answer is basically, "Yes, your IoT gadget is part of a botnet" or "Your IoT gadget is not part of a botnet yet".
You're an idiot if you think scientific credentials automatically makes you more rational than the craziest religious nut you can imagine. (I've got a qualifying sheepskin, for example, and I'll bet you think I'm a nut.)
First, I never said any such thing, and second, I don't know if you're a nut or not. You might be; there are lots of nuts with degrees.
-
You, for example, have a an incredibly distorted view of both science and religion. I'm just as bad.
Speak for yourself. I think I have a pretty damn good understanding of science and religion, which is why I mock religion for the con game it is.
-
All you're doing here, with your petty, hateful, remarks is to reinforce the beliefs of the few YEC's out there who belief that they're under attack from roving bands of atheists out to destroy their way of life.
First, I don't give a shit what the YECs believe, and second, they're correct: I am out to destroy their way of life, make no mistake about it. I'm a foe of bullshit and misinformation and if the YECs think I'm their enemy then that's one thing they managed to get right.
-
I'm referring to Tyson's absurd proclamation that we are "very likely" living in a simulation. To believe that we're living in a simulation necessitates that you also deny the material nature of our universe.
Guess what? I don't worship Neil DeGrasse Tyson or what he says. He's a smart guy (probably smarter than me) but that doesn't mean he's right about everything.
Even worse is that the claims of "the Bible is the direct word of God"
Lol, yeah....but which god? :)
Millions upon millions of people have worshiped thousands of different gods over the centuries, and most of them have fallen out of favor. Personally I like Anubis, that dude was awesome.
All hail Anubis!
There's nothing in climate change theory that gets in the way of any mainstream religious beliefs.
Lots of people would disagree with you on that.
That's also what they say about evolution now, but for a long time it was opposed because it flatly contradicts much of the bible. My how things change...
Bifurcating all worldview positions into "Creationism" versus "science" will end up destroying your brain.
Then I guess it's a good thing I don't do that. Show me some evidence for the creationist 'theory' that fits the facts and I'll believe it. But facts and creationism are at odds from the get-go, just like the 'evidence' for a flat Earth. Everything contradicts it, EVERYTHING. Every fact and theory and finding we have is at odds with it.
-
"Creationism" is something you are using to reference "a belief in God + any position whatsoever".
Not at all. Creationism is about the origins of the universe and everything in it, and everything we know invalidates it as a viable theory.
-
Presented with a position that agreed with science in -every respect-, including all of every scientific point proposed as to evolutionary history, but held that an intelligent being caused the Big Bang, you would (per your willfully-misdirecting term) call it "Creationist" and reject it on that basis alone,
Again, not at all. Show me some real evidence that an intelligent being caused the Big Bang and I'll believe it. I've got no problem changing my mind when the evidence shows that I'm wrong or have been mislead. Unlike many people, I've no problem changing my beliefs when presented with facts and evidence that make sense. Creationism simply doesn't rise to that level. Neither does the theory that the Earth is flat.
-
You're consumed merely by your petty bias and whatever personal behavioral motivators are involved.
And this, my friends, is what we call "projection". :)
My "petty bias" is nothing more than an insistence on seeing some fucking facts and evidence rather than believing whatever some jackass in a robe tells me to believe.