Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Mike vs. Joel (Score 1) 83

I hope this succeeds, but honestly I like Mike Nelson more than Joel. I'd be more inclined to help kickstart one from Mike.

I really like what Mike, Kevin, and Bill have going on with One just needs to beware that some riffs are done by people other than them, and imho aren't nearly as entertaining.

Comment Re:It all goes back to ... karma (Score 2) 169

You can't just say "I didn't vote for this" and absolve yourself from responsibility. Your tax dollars are paying for this and there is something that you can do about it:

  1. Go here:
  2. Type in your info.
  3. Call each number and leave a message stating "I am one of your registered constituents. I do not support the drone program. I perceive it to be illegal and may constitute war crimes. My name is Doofus O. Death and I live at *your address here*."
  4. Done!

That would take 1-4 minutes depending upon which state you live in and how many representatives you have.

Well, first you're going to have to explain in which ethical framework you think I'm trying to absolve myself, and why I failed to do so, and why I should accept that framework as relevant to me in the first place.

Second, you might want to consider the expected payoff of me calling my congressman on each of those issue, given the fact that I have no reason to believe that other constituents are adding their voices as well.

Third, you'd have to show that the expected payoff is worth sacrificing the other things I could do with that time, which you can only guess at, and would also be a value judgment which I might not share.

Comment Re:It all goes back to ... karma (Score 1) 169

Your points seem quite plausible, but I'd like to make a distinction about the word "we" in this context.

I as an individual did not support those choices. They were enacted by political elites who rule the land in which I was born.

Out of curiosity, have you voted for any of those elites? I'm guessing not but...

I'm too young to have voted about Reagan or George H.W. Bush. I voted for Obama's first term, because he seemed like the anti-Bush, but I was duped. I did not vote for his second term.

Comment Re:Millennials and "codes of conduct". (Score 4, Interesting) 247

Can anyone explain to me why Millennials are so gung-ho about "codes of conduct", and why they're so hypocritical about them?

Well, I could be wrong but I suspect every generation has had problems with snobbish moralism and hypocrisy. I've heard that August Caesar claimed himself to be a first amongst equals. But I would have hated to be anyone who in his presence dared treat him as an equal. About 2000 years ago, the Jews had a group known as the Pharisees, whom Jesus is said to have excoriated for excelling at making sure everyone around them saw how well they followed Jewish ceremonial law, but ignoring God's moral laws. I.e., they were sanctimonious jerks. Etc.

But I think the bigger issue is that many of these organizations espouse code of ethics which are internally inconsistent, and yet they won't admit that. They won't admit that people might hold different moral viewpoints for reasons which are just as defensible as theirs.

For example, Google says (said) "don't be evil". But there are different groups which have very incompatible views on what's evil: Pro-lifers vs. Planned Parenthood; conservatives vs. liberals vs. libertarians vs. anarchists; Christians vs. Muslims vs. atheists; Taliban vs. the Boston Symphony, etc. It's pretty clear that Google doesn't limit its actions to only those which all of those groups consider to be not evil.

So which of those groups' definitions of "evil" does Google willingly transgress? That's how you know which religions they consider false, which ethnic groups' beliefs they consider outmoded, etc. But they will not admit this fundamental truth of moral logic. Making them, in addition to everything else, disingenuous hypocrites.

Another problem is that organizations try to side-step the issue of whose ethics are correct, but saying that the real problem is causing offense. But this means that the most-offended person in the room gets the power to suppress the speech or actions of anyone with whom he disagrees. Some of whom find that, well, offensive. It stinks of sophism inspired by the fear of lawsuits.

"The Avis WIZARD decides if you get to drive a car. Your head won't touch the pillow of a Sheraton unless their computer says it's okay." -- Arthur Miller