Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Golden Rice (Score 2) 573

by ChromeAeonium (#49310939) Attached to: Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic

I can't tell if you're trolling or not but enough people do believe that keeping people impoverished and hungry is somehow good for them, and that it is somehow ethical to sit idly by and watch and do nothing while people starve just for being born in the wrong part of the planet. It's completely idiotic of course. Everywhere we see a reduction in poverty and increases in the standard of living we see lower birthrates. Do you really think we are going to bring about a greater human development index without first addressing the issues of starvation and malnutrition? Unlikely. Normal Borlaug once correctly remarked that the first essential component of social justice is adequate food for all mankind. You want to fight poverty, start by ensuring that no one goes to bed hungry. It's pretty hard to work your way to economic prosperity when you're dying of vitamin A deficiency.

Comment: Golden Rice (Score 5, Insightful) 573

by ChromeAeonium (#49310267) Attached to: Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic

Moore breaks with what might be expected of a Greenpeace founder as well in that he is currently chair of Allow Golden Rice.

Well, while he is wrong about climate change, his stance on Golden Rice is pretty well on. We know it works, we know it is safe, Greenpeace still opposes it because they know damned well that their cries of genetic engineering being a dangerous horrible thing that you should totally give them loads of cash to fight are going to look a bit silly when it is saving the lives of thousands of children. It's despicable that they are willing to allow unnecessary death and human suffering in developing countries just to further their careers as professional activists. They're no different than anti-vaxxers who bring back vaccine preventable disease, not in my book. I don't agree with Moore's stance on climate change, but at least he's doing good on this front to bring attention to the harm Greenpeace and other anti-science groups are doing.

Comment: Re:Please tell me this is satire (Score 1) 320

by ChromeAeonium (#49131219) Attached to: Use Astrology To Save Britain's Health System, Says MP

I usually just point to the widespread European opposition to genetically engineered crops for that one. At least our creationists aren't opposing lifesaving technology and actively destroying scientific research. As a plant scientist, I have to say I view Europe as a fairly hostile place for science. Europeans have absolutely no room to act as if Americans are the only ones with the problem of opposition to science when that sort of attitude is so prevalent in their own backyard.

Comment: The NASDAQ (Score 2) 252

by the eric conspiracy (#49098741) Attached to: No Tech Bubble Here, Says CNN: "This Time It's Different."

Come on man. UBER isn't even a stock. The so-called 'valuation' is somebody's pipe dream that hasn't been exposed to the marketplace.

ALSO there will ALWAYS be stocks that are over hyped and overvalued. Cherry picking individual issues and using them to characterize the market is a fools game.

March 10 2000 the NASDAQ hit 5132.

Now the NASDAQ is still well below the 2000 high on an inflation corrected basis. Even more so considering the burgeoning size of the tech economy over 15 years.

Maybe there is an argument that things are overwrought, especially in Vulture Capitalist Fantasy Land. But bubble? Nah.

Comment: Re:Technology can NOT eliminate work. (Score 1) 389

by geekoid (#49076777) Attached to: What To Do After Robots Take Your Job

"Or do you not understand the concept of "Artificial Intelligence"?"

actually, you don't understand that term.

It doesn't men self aware. YOU can have specialty AIs that make decision in the fields of expertise and that's it.

You might want to move past the 1950's version of AI.

There are Chess AI's that are better then almost everyone on the planet. WHen was the last times chess AI demanded a Union?

Comment: Re:Technology can NOT eliminate work. (Score 1) 389

by geekoid (#49076755) Attached to: What To Do After Robots Take Your Job

Except the 2 dollars will spiral down, like wages always do when there isn't a minimum.

"ou decide that is too expensive, and replace the employee with an answering machine."
well then, raise your rates. If you industry can't handle you raising your rates, well then the answering machine is good enough after all. Meaning the value add of it being a actual human is too low to bother.

We put that 'burden'* on industry because thats where the money is.
Maybe we should just tax at 90% all profit earned over a billion dollars?
Society and economics ONLY work well together when money is moving.

It's not like that money isn't going to come back to the corporation again.
Income is important for industry to grow on the market.

*as if striving for a balances and healthy society is some sort of burden...

In Nature there are neither rewards nor punishments, there are consequences. -- R.G. Ingersoll