Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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:If that wasn't crueal and unreasonable... (Score 1) 1038

by Dekker3D (#46007889) Attached to: Controversial Execution In Ohio Uses New Lethal Drug Combination

The whole thing where innocents get the death penalty because of mistakes, is why you keep them in jail until you're absolutely sure they -did- do it. And in most cases, you can't be absolutely sure they did it, so... you keep them there for life, instead of killing them. If they're escaping from jail too often, you've got another problem anyway. And the populace won't notice the difference between a death and a life imprisonment, other than having to pay slightly less tax because apparently life imprisonment is cheaper. And you have the benefit of not killing the innocent.

I'd say there's quite a few reasons to reserve executions for very few cases, or ban it outright. That said, I'm biased, I'm European. We're all progressive and shit.

Comment: Re:Yes. (Score 1) 518

by Dekker3D (#46005895) Attached to: Nobel Prize Winning Economist: Legalize Sale of Human Organs

The economy seems to always adjust to whether people can afford stuff though. Otherwise nobody would sell anything. If people can afford another $30000 in emergencies because they have some organs to sell, the cost of the stuff an average person buys in their life would just go up by a total of $30000. In that way, being able to sell organs while alive would become just another insurance scheme: spend a bit extra over time, so you can afford something big when you really need it.

Personally, the thought of having to actually use that insurance freaks me out. We'd be better off just getting a mandatory regular insurance of said $30k or whatever those organs are worth.

Comment: Re:Yes. (Score 1) 518

by Dekker3D (#46005591) Attached to: Nobel Prize Winning Economist: Legalize Sale of Human Organs

Think of debts due to hospital bills of a loved one, or having to choose between having two kidneys and letting your kid go to college. If many people started selling "redundant" organs, even for the best of reasons, then standards could shift so that others might do it for not-so-great reasons.. and we get a drop in the average health of poor people, for the advantage of those that are better off.

Hell, imagine having cancer and knowing it hasn't spread to some of your valuable, sellable organs yet... and you can't afford hospital bills the normal way. Most people would do it.

I know I'm invoking the slippery slope argument here, but I think it might be justified.

Comment: Re:We could not make them (Score 1) 514

An analogy I found earlier today was that those countries are a bit like babies. Making noise, occasionally hurting others or themselves by accident.. But if a baby drools/pees/vomits all over your sweater, you do not obliterate it. You teach it, or just trust that it's causing almost no damage. The well-established, loosely-allied countries in the world are the adults in this simile, who should be teaching the less well-off countries.

If we just showed the residents of those places how things could be, and gave them an anonymous, secure channel to voice their opinions through, that would give us plenty of information to know what to do next. Instead, the US gathered up some cronies (sadly, the country I live in was one of them) and pretty much just crushed any problem countries.

Comment: Re:Ummm Bullshit (Score 1) 213

by Dekker3D (#45688479) Attached to: Surge In Litecoin Mining Leads To Graphics Card Shortage

Probably, though I wouldn't know. I hadn't looked into mining until Bitcoins got so difficult to mine that graphics cards were completely irrelevant already. It's all ASICs now, and if you try to buy one you won't get it until it's become worthless. Expect to be scammed. That's mostly why Scrypt was made, afaik: to put power back in the users' hands, by making it difficult to mine by graphics card (failed) and by ASIC (hasn't failed yet; might later)

Comment: Re:How? (Score 1) 414

by Dekker3D (#45652909) Attached to: 3-D Printed Gun Ban Fails In Senate

I was going to post a similar comment to harrkev's, except I had to log in first to be able to actually post it. So I'll just add to that.

The printer used by Defense Distributed, as far as I know, is an FDM printer, much like the RepRaps. This would mean that I could easily print a plastic gun that's just as good as the ones made by DD. Making such a printer is easy to the point that anyone can make one from scratch with some technical knowledge and programming skills, now that we've seen them and know how they work. There is absolutely no way anyone could prevent a dedicated individual from 3D printing one of these guns.

I'm speaking from experience here, I've got a homemade Mendel90 and I've looked into the related software and firmware.

Comment: Re:Why are they doing this? (Score 1) 137

by Dekker3D (#45520955) Attached to: Singapore & South Korea Help NSA Tap Undersea Cables

To add to Errol's reply.. Basically, our minister of security and justice, Ivo Opstelten, loves to act like a rabid fanboy of the book 1984, and of the things the UK and USA are already doing. We're just lagging behind a year or two on the field of "massive disregard for citizens' rights".

Not an ideal choice, in other words.

Source: dutch citizen. Annoyed dutch citizen.

The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -- Sagan