Argh, this is worse than Web 2.0. Enormous margins, absurd amount of whitespace, poor mix of font sizes and really dumb use of gray-on-white text.
What is it with scrolling nowadays? On my 1080p monitor I can only see one or two stories on the front page without scrolling! SCROLL SCROLL SCROLL! It's going to wear out my mouse wheel. This is awful.
Comments are awful. Again, huge margins, too much whitespace, not enough use of color and separators.
Honestly, have we learned nothing from Google's recent mistakes? Apparently not, since Slashdot has now done its best to emulate Google's worst.
I implore you: Stop what you are doing. Delete this design. Delete the git repo. Delete the backups of the git repo. Fire the people who made it.
And don't ever put "beta" on anything ever again.
Honestly, the current non-beta design is still a step backwards from what Slashdot used to be. It's not just "don't fix what ain't broken"--it's "QUIT BREAKING IT!"
If Slashdot pushes this design out, I'm done with Slashdot. It'll be time to seriously make a replacement site for Slashdot and seriously put in time posting interesting stories and cultivating good comments.
;; This buffer is for notes you don't want to save, and for Lisp evaluation.;; If you want to create a file, visit that file with C-x C-f,;; then enter the text in that file's own buffer.
This is a total waste of time because you are totally blinded by faith...
I could say the same about you. You're not arguing logically. Ridiculing your opponent doesn't prove you correct.
It would be even better to first question the existence of sin and the existence of God, because questioning the nature of something that's not there doesn't sound particolarly practical to me. Sadly you are unwilling to question it, because no matter the evidence you would interpret it as supporting the existence of God.
I believe the existence of God and sin are included in questioning their nature. Let's not play word games, please. I'll be happy to discuss reasons for believing that God exists.
A dog chooses his actions: does he have free will? Hardly. A little child chooses his actions: does he have free will? Not yet, in fact we don't prosecute little kids. A man with locked-in syndrome can't choose any of his actions: does he still have free will? Yes.
I am surprised that you would liken human beings to dogs. Dogs are not conscious beings. They cannot contemplate their own existence or the nature of reality.
Of course a little child has free will. You are still conflating free will with the ability to know right from wrong. They are not the same thing.
Locked-in syndrome is relatively ridiculous in this discussion, but again, yes, such a person has free will. Just because his body is not functioning properly does not take away the ability for him to control his thoughts, to choose what to think, and to have desires. Locked-in syndrome is a medical problem. Do you not understand the difference?
no, because THEY DID NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL YET. How could they know that disobeying god was evil? They would learn that AFTER eating from the tree, that's the entire point of the tree. (Actually they learned the opposite, that their creator was a malicious lying bully and that they shouldn't unquestionably defer to authority). You can teach your dog to bring in the paper: if for some reason he doesn't do it just one time does that mean that he has free will? No!
You're still conflating free will with moral knowledge. A little child may not yet understand that pushing someone into the mud is wrong, or he may not understand why it's wrong, but he still has free will to choose whether to do it.
And, again, comparing humans and dogs is silly.
EXACTLY! How can you sin if you don't know what evil is? Can a dog sin?
You're still conflating free will with morality. Assuming an absolute standard for morality, certain actions are wrong whether or not an actor knows they are wrong.
If you want to argue that one shouldn't be held accountable for accidentally committing a wrong, that's a different matter. Or if you want to argue whether an absolute moral standard exists, that's also another argument.
And please stop comparing people to dogs. When your dog can be taught why a behavior is wrong, then you can use him as an example.
But if i don't know the diffrence between right and wrong how can i commit sin? I may accidentally kill a man, and that would not be a sin if i didn't intend on doing wrong. You can't really sin if you are unaware of sin.
You're getting closer, but you still don't quite understand. The presupposition here is that certain actions are absolutely wrong, i.e. sinful. One can commit a sin without knowing it's a sin, but it's still a sin. Whether such a person should be held accountable for accidental sins is another matter.
"bigot: A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion." [1913 Webster]
"bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own" [WordNet 2006]
Ah, bigotry, the postmodern witchhunt. Who is being intolerant here? You are the one uttering insults ("bigot", "contemptuous") and passing absolute judgment on my opinion ("wrong"). I am merely having a discussion.
You call my arguments wrong and foolish, yet you in no way refute them. Appeal to ridicule is an egregious fallacy.
It would take a time machine for me to believe that it's absolutely true, because without a time machine, we cannot prove it. There are always gaps, missing links in the chain. How wide they are is a matter of opinion. What I believe is that I don't know what happened thousands or millions of years ago, because I wasn't there and neither was anyone else alive today; and there are no records from that far back. We can speculate all we want, and it may be very interesting, but it doesn't prove anything.
So I will turn your question around and replace the burden of proof where it belongs: what would it take to get you to admit that we don't know that for certain? After all, like people seem to be fond of saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Of course, whether evidence is extraordinary or inconclusive is usually a matter of opinion. But face it: if you believe without a doubt that humans evolved from other species--and especially if you believe that all life evolved from a pond of protein goo--then your belief is ultimately founded on faith in what cannot be seen, just like those who believe God created the universe.
Here's another interesting question: what does it matter? Whether humans were created as humans or whether they evolved from other species, who cares? How does it change our lives today? If we could know for certain, maybe it would be relevant in some way. But since we can't, it's not important, and it's not helpful to have arguments about it and act divisively over it.
"There's no debate! There's consensus! It's settled! Now shut up and go sell your car, you stupid denialist."
That's what many alarmists' reasoning boils down to, i.e. not reason at all. Your reasoning is full of non sequiturs and red herrings and exaggerations and generalizations.
"Climate change is..." Allow me to complete that for you: "whatever we say it is, and whatever we want it to be."
"We" most certainly do not know for a fact that human CO2 output is the primary cause of global warming. There is no consensus on that. Maybe you missed it, but the paper by Cook, et al (which was even tweeted by Obama as if it were truth) was basically a big lie, planned ahead of time to ignore data not supporting their presupposition--and they even schemed to manipulate their data to skew the results. The truth was that the majority of scientists did not take a position on whether global warming is mostly due to human output.
Here's what I see: most alarmists rely on ridicule (e.g. from your post, "stupid", "nutbags", "denialists"), while most dissenters refrain from ridicule and rely on reason.
But when someone has already made up his mind, it's not possible to change it for him. He has to take his own fingers out of his own ears.
You must subscribe to an interesting definition of "fact." It can be neither proven nor disproven that God exists or that God created the universe. There is a universe of evidence, but each side will cite it as supporting their position. Both sides rely on faith, because neither side's position can be ultimately traced to indisputable evidence.
I miss the old meta-mod system. I thought it made a lot of sense to sort of "rule" whether a certain moderation applied to the post in question. It could hold the moderator accountable for misusing it. I don't dig the current +/- meta-mod system. I don't even bother. The whole point of the moderation system is that it's supposed to be better than a simple "good/bad" vote, but that's what the meta-mod does now.
And those qualities make it iconic. It's an excellent balance between size, capability, and cost. (And it also just happens to be the best-looking aircraft in history.)
What if you don't know where the nearest station is? What if you don't have a smartphone? What if you don't have any kind of mobile phone? What if the unmarked car blocks your vehicle when you stop at a red light on the way to the nearest station?
Referring to, "Instead of calling me stupid you could just explain why you said it." Was an implied question. Can form complete sentences. Have been doing so this whole time. Are not following the conversation here?
Slashdot Mirror
Argh, this is worse than Web 2.0. Enormous margins, absurd amount of whitespace, poor mix of font sizes and really dumb use of gray-on-white text.
What is it with scrolling nowadays? On my 1080p monitor I can only see one or two stories on the front page without scrolling! SCROLL SCROLL SCROLL! It's going to wear out my mouse wheel. This is awful.
Comments are awful. Again, huge margins, too much whitespace, not enough use of color and separators.
Honestly, have we learned nothing from Google's recent mistakes? Apparently not, since Slashdot has now done its best to emulate Google's worst.
I implore you: Stop what you are doing. Delete this design. Delete the git repo. Delete the backups of the git repo. Fire the people who made it.
And don't ever put "beta" on anything ever again.
Honestly, the current non-beta design is still a step backwards from what Slashdot used to be. It's not just "don't fix what ain't broken"--it's "QUIT BREAKING IT!"
If Slashdot pushes this design out, I'm done with Slashdot. It'll be time to seriously make a replacement site for Slashdot and seriously put in time posting interesting stories and cultivating good comments.
Where did you obtain your data?
What is your point?
Neither do all atheists. What is your point? :)
;; This buffer is for notes you don't want to save, and for Lisp evaluation. ;; If you want to create a file, visit that file with C-x C-f, ;; then enter the text in that file's own buffer.
This is a total waste of time because you are totally blinded by faith...
I could say the same about you. You're not arguing logically. Ridiculing your opponent doesn't prove you correct.
It would be even better to first question the existence of sin and the existence of God, because questioning the nature of something that's not there doesn't sound particolarly practical to me. Sadly you are unwilling to question it, because no matter the evidence you would interpret it as supporting the existence of God.
I believe the existence of God and sin are included in questioning their nature. Let's not play word games, please. I'll be happy to discuss reasons for believing that God exists.
A dog chooses his actions: does he have free will? Hardly. A little child chooses his actions: does he have free will? Not yet, in fact we don't prosecute little kids. A man with locked-in syndrome can't choose any of his actions: does he still have free will? Yes.
I am surprised that you would liken human beings to dogs. Dogs are not conscious beings. They cannot contemplate their own existence or the nature of reality.
Of course a little child has free will. You are still conflating free will with the ability to know right from wrong. They are not the same thing.
Locked-in syndrome is relatively ridiculous in this discussion, but again, yes, such a person has free will. Just because his body is not functioning properly does not take away the ability for him to control his thoughts, to choose what to think, and to have desires. Locked-in syndrome is a medical problem. Do you not understand the difference?
no, because THEY DID NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL YET. How could they know that disobeying god was evil? They would learn that AFTER eating from the tree, that's the entire point of the tree. (Actually they learned the opposite, that their creator was a malicious lying bully and that they shouldn't unquestionably defer to authority). You can teach your dog to bring in the paper: if for some reason he doesn't do it just one time does that mean that he has free will? No!
You're still conflating free will with moral knowledge. A little child may not yet understand that pushing someone into the mud is wrong, or he may not understand why it's wrong, but he still has free will to choose whether to do it.
And, again, comparing humans and dogs is silly.
EXACTLY! How can you sin if you don't know what evil is? Can a dog sin?
You're still conflating free will with morality. Assuming an absolute standard for morality, certain actions are wrong whether or not an actor knows they are wrong.
If you want to argue that one shouldn't be held accountable for accidentally committing a wrong, that's a different matter. Or if you want to argue whether an absolute moral standard exists, that's also another argument.
And please stop comparing people to dogs. When your dog can be taught why a behavior is wrong, then you can use him as an example.
But if i don't know the diffrence between right and wrong how can i commit sin? I may accidentally kill a man, and that would not be a sin if i didn't intend on doing wrong. You can't really sin if you are unaware of sin.
You're getting closer, but you still don't quite understand. The presupposition here is that certain actions are absolutely wrong, i.e. sinful. One can commit a sin without knowing it's a sin, but it's still a sin. Whether such a person should be held accountable for accidental sins is another matter.
God did not lie to them. He t
"bigot: A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion." [1913 Webster]
"bigot: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own" [WordNet 2006]
Ah, bigotry, the postmodern witchhunt. Who is being intolerant here? You are the one uttering insults ("bigot", "contemptuous") and passing absolute judgment on my opinion ("wrong"). I am merely having a discussion.
You call my arguments wrong and foolish, yet you in no way refute them. Appeal to ridicule is an egregious fallacy.
It would take a time machine for me to believe that it's absolutely true, because without a time machine, we cannot prove it. There are always gaps, missing links in the chain. How wide they are is a matter of opinion. What I believe is that I don't know what happened thousands or millions of years ago, because I wasn't there and neither was anyone else alive today; and there are no records from that far back. We can speculate all we want, and it may be very interesting, but it doesn't prove anything.
So I will turn your question around and replace the burden of proof where it belongs: what would it take to get you to admit that we don't know that for certain? After all, like people seem to be fond of saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Of course, whether evidence is extraordinary or inconclusive is usually a matter of opinion. But face it: if you believe without a doubt that humans evolved from other species--and especially if you believe that all life evolved from a pond of protein goo--then your belief is ultimately founded on faith in what cannot be seen, just like those who believe God created the universe.
Here's another interesting question: what does it matter? Whether humans were created as humans or whether they evolved from other species, who cares? How does it change our lives today? If we could know for certain, maybe it would be relevant in some way. But since we can't, it's not important, and it's not helpful to have arguments about it and act divisively over it.
Er...no. Good looking? Maybe. More beautiful than the F-16? Not even close.
Agree 100%. There's nothing like a Viper.
Actually it does move slightly. The first F-16s' sticks didn't move at all, and pilots found it too difficult to adapt.
Yes, please!
In what way are any of those comments a problem?
Oh, they aren't P.C., i.e. liberal. Mustn't have any of those dissenting viewpoints disseminated on our web site!
PopSci is just pushing their agenda. Pathetic. We'll all be better off going to other web sites.
"There's no debate! There's consensus! It's settled! Now shut up and go sell your car, you stupid denialist."
That's what many alarmists' reasoning boils down to, i.e. not reason at all. Your reasoning is full of non sequiturs and red herrings and exaggerations and generalizations.
"Climate change is..." Allow me to complete that for you: "whatever we say it is, and whatever we want it to be."
"We" most certainly do not know for a fact that human CO2 output is the primary cause of global warming. There is no consensus on that. Maybe you missed it, but the paper by Cook, et al (which was even tweeted by Obama as if it were truth) was basically a big lie, planned ahead of time to ignore data not supporting their presupposition--and they even schemed to manipulate their data to skew the results. The truth was that the majority of scientists did not take a position on whether global warming is mostly due to human output.
Here's what I see: most alarmists rely on ridicule (e.g. from your post, "stupid", "nutbags", "denialists"), while most dissenters refrain from ridicule and rely on reason.
But when someone has already made up his mind, it's not possible to change it for him. He has to take his own fingers out of his own ears.
You must subscribe to an interesting definition of "fact." It can be neither proven nor disproven that God exists or that God created the universe. There is a universe of evidence, but each side will cite it as supporting their position. Both sides rely on faith, because neither side's position can be ultimately traced to indisputable evidence.
Very interesting idea.
What if they ignore the disagree button and mod it down anyway?
I miss the old meta-mod system. I thought it made a lot of sense to sort of "rule" whether a certain moderation applied to the post in question. It could hold the moderator accountable for misusing it. I don't dig the current +/- meta-mod system. I don't even bother. The whole point of the moderation system is that it's supposed to be better than a simple "good/bad" vote, but that's what the meta-mod does now.
lifelessplanet.com
And those qualities make it iconic. It's an excellent balance between size, capability, and cost. (And it also just happens to be the best-looking aircraft in history.)
How is the F-16 stealthy?
What if you don't know where the nearest station is? What if you don't have a smartphone? What if you don't have any kind of mobile phone? What if the unmarked car blocks your vehicle when you stop at a red light on the way to the nearest station?
I went the other way: first played ping pong, then some tennis. I go overboard with spin in both.
Are you one of those people who scoffs at "soccer," even though the term originated in England?
Except that's what it's called.
Mod parent up.
Referring to, "Instead of calling me stupid you could just explain why you said it." Was an implied question. Can form complete sentences. Have been doing so this whole time. Are not following the conversation here?