Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Basic income / maybe make full time 32-30 hours (Score 1) 385

That first "if" won't happen. Also, Star Trek was far from utopia - wars on interplanetary and interstellar scales are not an improvement. Additionally, it would require infinite energy and infinite speed (amount other things) to make anything resembling the federation viable - and we have neither, and won't be getting them in this universe.

You're forgetting what happens with a "manufacturer's strike." When there's no incentive to produce something, why bother, since there's no upside, just a potential downside.

Comment Re:Simplistic (Score 2) 385

The problem with the website in OP with their 4 keypoints (and the 80% from the optimisic investor in your quote) - is they dont take into account the damage done if a computer gets it wrong.

This is current with UAVs, we have autopilots, but is anyone prepared to board an automated 787 without any pilot onboard?

It will probably eventually be safer and more convenient. Same as automated elevators, traffic lights, etc.

Comment Pr0n actors, scriptwrites musicians in the 2020s (Score 2) 385

The porn industry will be the first to replace actors with digital actors that look "even realer than life. Won't even require the digital overlay that was simulated in Running Man. And you can have it any way you want, just like Doug Quade in Total Recall. 37.4%? I doubt it.

Writers are rated at a 3.8% change of being automated. How hard can it be for software to turn out porno plots? Really?

Musicians and singers - 7.4%? Can anyone ever remember the cheesier-than-elevator-muzak from those cheap pornos?

It will create more opportunities for optometrists (13.5%).

Now someone make the inevitable pr0n overlords, please :-)

Comment Re:Heh... Nice story. (Score 1) 2

Thanks :-) It shows up on the main feed because there's a bug in slashdot. Even if you don't check the checkbox to share it, it ends up there. That's why you'll (1) see a lot of journal entries there, and (2) know that not too many people are writing journals any more, or the firehose. I guess I have my options set differently because I don't see it listed on the main page, but if true, that's a bit scary - not that I care any more
User Journal

Journal Journal: They can't say "You haven't changed a bit" 2

Ever meet someone who you last saw each other as kids? My sister Sandra in the convalescent home gave me Sherri's phone number and we agreed to both visit Sandra yesterday, and that I'd be there a bit ahead of time.

She had already talked to my sister Cathy, and when Sherri had asked about me, Cathy had said "______ is now Barbara."

Comment Re:Not clear (Score 1) 6

A non-denial denial:

But on Tuesday, Freddy Ford, a spokesman for Bush, denied those reports.

"While President Bush is indeed friends with Bonnie and Helen, he doesn’t recall making such an offer," he said in an e-mail.

If he hadn't made such an offer, you can be sure that he would remember that "I made no such offer."

Comment Re:This is how organized religion dies (Score 1) 623

Here's the beginning of that comment:

Multiple lovers maybe, but multiple primary partners? I doubt that, personally. I don't think mere lovers need to be recognised in law. I don't see the case for it.

So the main thrust of the question was NOT about inheritance. Your question of multiple primary partners being recognized by law was answered several times.

But if you go up a bit, the discussion was not about inheritance until you tried to throw out roadblocks (changing the goalposts) after I pointed out you were wrong about the the existence of polygamy, there and elsewhere.

And the answer is obvious as far as inheritance is concerned, unless there's a will that specifies otherwise; the communal property remains communal. Doesn't matter if there's just one partner or more still living, so what's the big deal? Did you think before asking that question?

Comment Re:"nutritional facts" - chocolate IS good for you (Score 1) 260

NOT bringing your loved one at least some chocolate on Valentine's day can be bad for both your physical and emotional health. Negative physical effects can include sore back from sleeping on the couch to pneumonia from sleeping in the dog house, as well as bruising from flying saucers (and cups and plates and anything else handy) to not being able to have sex until you atone :-)

Slashdot Top Deals

People will buy anything that's one to a customer.

Working...