Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics

s.petry Re:But it's already a fallacy?? (484 comments)

Context is what makes it a logical fallacy, not the platform the speaker is standing on.

12 hours ago
top

Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?

s.petry Re:Um, no! (497 comments)

As I've already stated: A god concept is unnecessary to explain a final judgement or a soul, hence, both are compatible with atheism.

There's no contradiction. You don't need a god concept for a judgement or an afterlife.

No you did not, you completely ignored everything that could possible make this a rational thought.

I'm going to guess that by "study" you mean "smoking pot" and not "reading books". Start with Whitehead and work your way forward.

When you can not debate rationally, revert to insult and ad hominem to smoke screen. What a surprisingly mature position you maintain. (sarcasm just in case you missed it.)

Equally, why do you think that a soul only has purpose if a god exists? That seems like it would be a complicated argument to make, and I doubt that any such argument would be convincing.
Again, your argument was that "Hinduism" (by your definition) is incompatible with atheism:

Red Herring, you simply refuse to admit you are wrong. You still have no logical explanation for a soul with an atheist position, because atheism by nature disbelieves in supernatural forces. I have read a whole lot of excellent philosophical works and named 3 authors, you can't name one and can't argue your own position. Not one time in this thread so far have have you done anything except for say "nuh uh" and "look over there!".

No use continuing to debate someone that has zero ability to defend their position rationally. Later.

12 hours ago
top

Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?

s.petry Re:Um, no! (497 comments)

No, it's right there in the summary: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."

Right away you are ignoring the definition of deity completely. Notice also that you neglected the definition of a soul, and did not explain how a soul can be judged without a deity.

If you want to argue that a soul and it's judgement fits with atheism please explain. Point me to a credible philosophical work which explains how this contradiction can occur and I'll be satisfied. I have studied Philosophy for nearly 4 decades and have yet to read or see such work. None of the people who publicly debate the atheist position address this point, because belief in a "soul" is irrational without a deity. Perhaps you can do what Marx, Godwin, and Miller can't do.

Hence my reply to your original post where I contend that you can be an atheist and still believe in all of those things you list, as well as a multitude of similar things. My point was that your argument that "Hinduism" is incomparable with atheism is incoherent.

As I stated previously, putting different clothing on a deity does not make it anything but a deity. Arguing that Hinduism does not believe in a Abrahamic God does not make their belief that a deity controls the Universe any different. The Hindu religion just gives different clothing to the deity and calls it a different name (different supernatural powers, but not really a different supernatural purpose).

I'm going to stop you there. Your contention was that a " supernatural being" was necessary to attach a soul to a vessel and thus an atheist cannot believe in reincarnation. My point was that you need not posit a god as such an entity is not necessarily essential. Why shouldn't a soul be able to step in to a vessel as easily as I step in to my car? You seem to have VERY strong beliefs about things that you don't believe even exist. I find that puzzling.

My contention was that a deity is required for a soul to be judged and have a purpose, you are attempting to cherry pick a fragment to suit your argument. That said, you have not benefited your argument at all. You are trying to compare an action that you can make with a physical object with a measurable result, to an imaginary action on an imaginary object and an imaginary result. I don't consider that puzzling, I consider that irrational.

yesterday
top

Obama Administration Argues For Backdoors In Personal Electronics

s.petry But it's already a fallacy?? (484 comments)

While I think your point does have some merit, it's because many people are ignorant with Logic and Rhetoric. It would be better to get people to recognize an appeal to emotion logical fallacy, at least occasionally. Reassigning "think of the children" to reductio ad hitlerum would only work if the people in power maintained the same "think of the children" arguments. They already swap this out on occasion with "think of the elderly", "think of the handicapped", or any other item they believe makes a confusing enough logical fallacy that people will fall for it in mass.

yesterday
top

Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?

s.petry Re:Um, no! (497 comments)

Sorry, I assumed you were using the definition everyone else uses. In the future, it would help if you gave your own definition for terms if you've redefined them to suit your personal tastes.

The Wiki article and definition is wrong? The premise of atheist arguments that "science ~can prove~ that a deity is not needed for a Universe" discussed in books since at least the 1700s are all wrong too? Or perhaps you are attempting to nitpick a fragment of the atheist position so that you can suit a belief that is surely not atheist? Quite possibly attempting to cloth a deity in a disguise so that your version of a deity does not match a more common theological view (without realizing that your deity is still a deity).

I don't need a mechanic to get in my car, or a tailor to get dressed in the morning. Why should a supernatural being be necessary for a disembodied soul to possess a vessel?

Hmm, car is a tangible scientifically made object. A Soul is what again? This is not comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to unicorns.

yesterday
top

Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?

s.petry Re:Um, no! (497 comments)

Also, what makes you think that I'm making a statement about my beliefs?

Fair point, you could be playing devils advocate. However, it was your statements I responded to so a fair response.

Why do think that a belief in a soul, judgement, etc. require a belief in a god?

Atheism does not claim a particular god (or group of gods) does not exist, atheism claims that the Universe requires no supernatural deity in order to exist and can be explained by science alone.

Judgement of a soul (which meets criteria as supernatural entity on it's own) would be done by what exactly, if not a supernatural being? Moving said soul into another living creature would be done by what exactly, if not a supernatural being?

Belief in what is convenient is satanism "do what thou wilt" and not atheism. And yes segments of atheism have been taken over by satanic beliefs, and it's been easy to do since people believe in appeals to authority.

yesterday
top

Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?

s.petry Re:Um, no! (497 comments)

I never stated that Wikipedia was the definitive source, I said there is an easy to see statement which would have demonstrated that you are wrong. The traditions you attempting to claim are "not religious" happen to be for the purpose of cleansing one's soul. I won't reiterate what gl4ss stated, since it's on point. What _you_ call Hinduism is not the same as what a person practicing Hinduism believes.

How is that belief superstitious and incompatible with atheism?

As previously stated souls, reincarnation, magic, etc.. all fall under supernatural. Being assigned to a deity or mystical energy makes no difference, because neither are scientifically provable and neither relate to a physical scientific world. If you happen to believe in souls and reincarnation and claim to be an atheist, I would suggest that you contemplate your claim of being atheist more thoroughly because you are doing it wrong.

Unfortunately, there are a number of self proclaimed atheists who are not really atheists, what they really believe is the satanic creed "do what thou wilt" and never stop to ask the important questions.

yesterday
top

Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?

s.petry Re:Um, no! (497 comments)

Then you are not atheist, you are agnostic (or Pagan, or something else). A soul, and judgement system for a soul, does not meet atheist criteria of a deity-less universe.

yesterday
top

Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?

s.petry Um, no! (497 comments)

No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.

You don't have to study the religion very far to know that much. And sure, maybe you live in the backwoods someplace and can't find an Hindu to talk to about Hinduism. You could have had the courtesy of reading past the first paragraph in the Wiki page too, where you would have seen in the first sentence "In Hinduism, dharma signifies behaviors that are considered to be in accord with rta, the order that makes life and universe possible. A soul, reincarnation, and "an order that makes life and universe possible" are all superstitious and incompatible with atheism.

Good grief man, stop believing everything you are told.

yesterday
top

Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?

s.petry Re:logical necessities (497 comments)

I'd normally tell people that it's worth spending a good deal of time contemplating and debating Aristotle's work on causality prior to jumping into something related to Aquinas. I have never read Feser, does he attempt to bridge the gap for a novice? Does not sound that way by your description.

yesterday
top

Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?

s.petry I'd like Bulls*&t for 1000 Alex! (497 comments)

And the answer is "How many logical fallacies can you fit into a paragraph." *ding ding ding*

Perhaps "I'd like Trolling Slashdot for 1000", and the answer is "Mention Religion in a summary, more than one preferably"

No, discussing alien life is not "new" and no, this is not some interesting twist on the discussion. Claiming that "we are going to find alien life by XXXX date" is akin to claiming "the world is going to end by XXXX date". I don't believe in your tarot cards, your phrenology, or what ever else you claim gives you the power to see the future. We all know that the potential is there, but.. well you can read the definition of the word on your own.

You hopefully stopped reading when the guy correlates finding planets with finding life, knowing it was a troll.

yesterday
top

Grooveshark Found Guilty of Massive Copyright Infringement

s.petry Re:Funny, however.. (163 comments)

From further reading, the ruling is based largely on the Chairman's testimony. There is some corroborating testimony from other employees backing requests from executives to upload "popular" music to their service to seed. Logs and actual evidence are not provided, and searching a bit found nothing. I'm not digging through PACER for this, be my guest if you are inclined :)

Transcripts are not available so it's impossible to know if context, however the Chairman is quoted stating they "bet the company on the fact that [it] is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission” to use plaintiffs’ content. Id. Escape discussed the possibility that its strategy of illegally growing its user base before settling with plaintiffs might permit it to collect information about Grooveshark users’listening habits, which it could then sell to plaintiffs for more than Escape."

This would put liability on the company, but I would suspect that it would require backing evidence which we can't see. Considering that there are personal charges brought against 9 other employees, there is an obvious concern that a plea bargain could contaminate testimony of the Chairman. That said, backing testimony does exist.

The plaintiffs claim that logs and source code were destroyed in discovery, but this is a normal claim by RIA lawyers when facts don't yield what they want. Of course the RIA is mentioned all over the court findings, including the initial lawsuit started by UMG and RIA. The initial law suit was over material that was recorded prior to 1972 and was not subject to copyright protection.

I'm so glad that the Copyright laws are here to ensure that the Hendrix family receives money from Jimmy's works. Oh wait, they fuck over everyone they can and pocket everything.. nevermind.

yesterday
top

Joey Hudy: From High School Kid to Celebrity Maker to Intel Intern (Video)

s.petry Re:What did this kid do again? (30 comments)

I agree with the premise, but not the conclusion. Obviously these are opinions which are perspective based, so I'd be happy to have more data on how you came to your conclusion.

IMHO (not really that humble most of the time) I don't believe it's so that they can tell people they are worthless as much as they can claim that certain people and projects are much better than reality dictates. We can claim all of these Government programs really work if we hype small things like this, and of course ignore the fact that people are accomplishing exactly what you could have seen in a school science fair back when I was a kid. Not only that, but you can become a celebrity by doing so.

No matter which of us is closer to the truth in our opinionated conclusion, the fact remains that this is propaganda and not "News for Nerds". The unknown is what the purpose of the propaganda is, which often stays hidden for a very long time.

yesterday
top

Joey Hudy: From High School Kid to Celebrity Maker to Intel Intern (Video)

s.petry BS! (30 comments)

Before someone ends up jailed, check your state laws regarding this. An emancipated 16 year old can be treated like an adult in the workforce, but that is not because of their age.

yesterday
top

New Research Casts Doubt On the "10,000 Hour Rule" of Expertise

s.petry Re:More eugenics propaganda? (188 comments)

It is impossible that you are clueless regarding the term genetics. It is further impossible that you can not know that genetics includes traits such as skin color and slant of eyes. Therefor any claim that genetics makes a person smarter, or dumber, must include racial traits in order to be valid. This is not complex deductive reasoning.

This is explained in the previous posts so you either chose to selectively read what was written or you are just trolling.

2 days ago
top

Grooveshark Found Guilty of Massive Copyright Infringement

s.petry Re:Funny, however.. (163 comments)

No offense is intended, but I refuse to simply take someone's word for it. I'll try to read through the piles of evidence this evening and see what is there. Sure, it may have not been sensational enough to make a headline, but you don't provide any evidence either.

I would not be surprised if there is no evidence, because this would not be the first time we have seen a Kangaroo court in action. I have seen copyright be grandfathered in some cases by the MPAA/RIA so this would surely come as no surprise.

The surprise however is the passivity of the people when these things have occurred in the past.

2 days ago
top

Robotic Taster Will Judge 'Real Thai Food'

s.petry Re:Say what? (103 comments)

Whether I like him or not does not make any difference to my point. His fame is due primarily to being a very savvy business person, not because any dish he touches tastes like gold (sorry, I can't come up with a universally acceptable flavor analogy for "awesome").

You mistakenly took my comment as an attack, and that is far from the truth. Chefs are certainly in two categories, and finding pairs working together yields 5 Star dining establishments. The first kind of Chef is the artist, that is the guy that makes food that wins awards. The Artist want's the best of everything all the time, even if he would lose money using the best of everything all the time. The second kind is the business kind, and they get awards for salvaging failing restaurants and making businesses very profitable. Ramsey is the latter kind, and he's very good at it.

And to be sure there is no confusion, I never said his goal was to make money for himself. He has at least one TV series where he is turning financially failing businesses into very profitable ones for other people. He understands the business side of Culinary arts very well, and that is his strength. That does not imply he's not also a competent cook, more that the old saying is correct. A jack of all trades is a master of none.

2 days ago
top

Grooveshark Found Guilty of Massive Copyright Infringement

s.petry Funny, however.. (163 comments)

First a disclaimer, I don't feel like reading everything TFA links. Perhaps there is something incriminating in the details, but at least what the summary states is hardly illegal.

"Please share as much music as possible from outside the office, and leave your computers on whenever you can. This initial content is what will help to get our network started—it’s very important that we all help out! ... Download as many MP3’s as possible, and add them to the folders you’re sharing on Grooveshark. Some of us are setting up special 'seed points' to house tens or even hundreds of thousands of files, but we can’t do this alone." He also threatened employees who didn't contribute.

I don't see any statement about stealing MP3s to share, ignoring copyright claims by artists, or copying personally purchased music into the service. Those things would surely be illegal, and perhaps that is in the evidence somewhere and just didn't make the summary.

2 days ago
top

Microsoft's Asimov System To Monitor Users' Machines In Real Time

s.petry Re:Which users? (266 comments)

Been there, and applied a patch from Microsoft and everything starts phoning home again. No, I should not have to constantly chip what we pay for to make it function in a business environment. Ubuntu at least has that as an excuse.

2 days ago
top

The Odd Effects of Being Struck By Lightning

s.petry Re:Not guaranteed memory problems (191 comments)

I appreciate the clarification, and happen to agree that interrogation and clarification is severely lacking in dialogue. That said, statements such as "You appear to have a poor understanding of electricity." are purely speculation and opinion and don't seem to match your claim of tendency and interests. This serves as precisely as an appeal which you claim to ignore.

No harm done to my ego, and hopefully not yours either. I enjoy good dialogue, and try to practice as often as I can (not easy on Slashdot either).

2 days ago

Submissions

top

Slashdot Beta Woes

s.petry s.petry writes  |  about 8 months ago

s.petry (762400) writes "What is a Slashdot and why the Beta might destroy it?

Slashdot has been around, well, a very long time. Longer than any of it's competators, but not as long as IIRC. Slashdot was a very much one of the first true social media web sites.

On Slashdot, you could create a handle or ID. Something personal, but not too personal, unless you wanted it to be. But it was not required either. We know each other by our handles, we have watched each other grow as people. We may have even taken pot shots at each other in threads. Unless of course you are anonymous, but often we can guess who that really is.

One of Slashdot's first motto's was "News for Nerds" that Matters. I have no idea when that was removed. I have not always scoured the boards here daily, life can get too busy for that. That excuses my ignorance in a way. I guess someone thought it politically incorrect, but most of us "Nerds" enjoyed it. We are proud of who we are, and what we know. Often we use that pride and knowledge to make someone else look bad. That is how we get our digs in, and we enjoy that part of us too. We don't punch people, we belittle them. It's who we are!

What made Slashdot unique were a few things. What you will note here is "who" has been responsible for the success of Slashdot. Hint, it has never been a just the company taking care of the servers and software.

— First, the user base submitted stories that "they" thought mattered. It was not a corporate feed. Sure, stories were submitted about companies. The latest break through from AMD and Intel, various stories regarding the graphic card wars, my compiler is better than your compiler, and yes your scripting language stinks! Microsoft IIS has brought us all a few laughs and lots of flame wars to boot. Still, we not only read about the products but get to my second point.

— User comments. This is the primary why we have been coming here for as long as we have, many of us for decades. We provide alternative opinions or back what was given in the article. This aspect not only makes the "News" interesting, but often leads to other news and information sharing. It's not always positive, but this is the nature of allowing commentary. It also brings out the third point.

— Moderation. Moderation has been done by the community for a very long time. It took lots of trial and error to get a working system. As with any public system it's imperfect, but it's been successful. People can choose to view poorly modded comments, but don't have to. As with posting anonymous versus with our own handle it's an option that allows us to personalize the way we see and read what's on the site. And as a reward for submitting something worth reading, you might get a mod point of your own to use as a reward for someone else.

Why we dislike Beta and what is being pushed, and why this will result in the end of an era if it becomes forced on the community.

1. Bulky graphics. We get that Dice and Slashdot need revenue. I have Karma good enough to disable advertisements, but have never kept this setting on. I realize that Slashdot/Dice make money with this. That said, the ads sit away from my news and out of the way. I can get there if I want it (but nobody has ever gotten a penny from me clicking an ad... nobody!), but it's not forced into my face or news feed.

2. Low text area. I like having enough on my screen to keep me busy without constant scrolling. Slashdot currently has the correct ratio of text to screen. This ratio has never been complained about, yet Beta reduces the usable text area by at least 1/2 and no option for changing the behavior. I hate reading Slashdot on mobile devices because I can't stand scrolling constantly.

3. JavaScript. We all know the risks of JS, and many of us disable it. We also have an option of reading in Lync or non-standard browsers that many of us toy with for both personal and professional reasons. This flexibility is gone in Beta, and we are forced to allow JS to run. If you don't know the risks of allowing JS to run, you probably don't read much on Slashdot. Those that allow JS do so accepting the risk (which is admittedly low on a well known site).

4. Ordering/Sorting/Referencing. Each entry currently gets tagged with a unique thread ID. This allows linking to the exact post in a thread, not just the top of the thread. In Beta this is gone. It could be that the site decided to simply hide the post ID or it was removed. Either way, going to specific posts is something that is used very commonly by the community.

5. Eye candy. Most of us are not here for "eye candy" and many have allergic reactions to eye candy. Slashdot has a good mix currently. It's not as simple as the site starting with a r-e-d-i-t, which is good. That site has a reputation that keeps many of us away, and their format matches my attitude of them (s-i-m-p-l-e-t-o-n). At the same time, it's not like watching some other "news" sites with so much scrolling crap I can't read an article without getting a headache. The wasted space in beta for big bulky borders, sure smells like eye candy. Nothing buzzes or scrolls yet, but we can sense what's coming in a patch later.

The thing is, the community cares about Slashdot. We come here because we care. We submit stories because of that, we vote because of that, we moderate because of that, and we comment because of that. At the same time we realize that without the community Slashdot loses most of its value. We respect that we don't host the servers, backup the databases, or patch the servers. Slashdot/Dice provide the services needed for Slashdot.

It's a give give relationship, and we each get something in return. Slashdot gets tons of Search hits and lots of web traffic. We get a place to learn, teach, and occasionally vent.

Look, if you want to change default color scheme or make pre-made palettes for us to choose from, we would probably be okay with that. If you want to take away our ability to block ads by Karma, or move the ads to the left side of my browser window, I would be okay with those things too.

If you want to make drastic changes to how the site works, this is a different story all together. The reason so many are against Beta is that it breaks some of the fundamental parts of what makes Slashdot work.

User input until recently has not been acknowledged. The acknowledgment we have received is not from the people that are making the decision to push Beta live. We told people Beta was broken, what it lacked, and we were rather surprised to get a warning that Beta would be live despite what we told people. People are already making plans to leave, which means that Slashdot could fade away very soon.

Whether this was the goal for Dice or not remains to be seen. If it is, it's been nice knowing you but I won't be back. A partnership only works when there is mutual respect between the parties. A word of caution, us Nerds have good memories and lots of knowledge. The loss of Slashdot impacts all of Dice holdings, not just Slashdot. I boycott everything a company holds, not just the product group that did me wrong.

If that was not the goal of Dice, you should quickly begin communicating with the user base. What are the plans are to fix what Beta has broken? Why is Beta being pushed live with things broken? A "Sorry we have not been communicating!", and perhaps even a "Thank you" to the user base for helping make Slashdot a success for so many years."
top

Limiting debate in science, is it still science?

s.petry s.petry writes  |  1 year,4 days

s.petry (762400) writes "We knew that this was coming, but I'm sure many of us thought that science would be immune to censorship. Perhaps not. I was not surprised that it happened on Boing Boing, but on a "science" site I never expected it (at least not this quickly).

These decisions may smack some as subjective or even malicious. After all comments are arguably the digital age response to print's "letter to the editor" — and they often contain criticisms of the article ranging from grammatical erorrs to factual oversights. Some may view the decision to ban comments as a form of censorship, a means for writers to escape any sort of visible accountability among their audience.

While that statement does not get to the meaty subject of real trolling and sock puppets, it does beg a very important set of questions. Especially when the reason for Popular Science from them claims:

And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.

As the article points out, Science is not about doctrine. Science is about methods of proof. Science also requires collaboration and gets much better when numerous minds work on and debate the Science.

Is censorship the right direction, or is finding more intelligent ways of reducing sock puppets and trolls through moderation?"

Link to Original Source

Journals

s.petry has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?