Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:So... (Score 1) 125

So far they have not managed to kill all of humanity, but they will keep trying until they succeed.

Do you actually believe this, in which case you're insane, or are you simply lying about other people to make yourself seem better?

I hope that some day we can screen for this type of evil early on and can drown them a birth.

So killing children is awesome when it advances your political goals. But then what ground do you have to call other people evil for killing people accidentally?

Seriously, can't you just watch wrestling or something for this sort of thing, and come discuss serious matters when your tribal instincts have been satisfied?

Comment Re:Survey bias (Score 1) 125

The lies of the nuclear-apologists are really staggering and so is their stupidity...

Perhaps. And perhaps the Anonymous Coward you're answering is pro-nuclear. We don't know, since he only made a comment on methodology. What we do know is that you're following a tribal politics approach to engineering decisions, which will most certainly result in lots people getting hurt needlessly, either directly or through economic consequences.

Comment Re:Simple (Score 1) 155

A good design would reset the dial string on an invalid entry.

What if your hands are shaking because you're dying because the terrorist who's trying to nuke New York just shot you, and you need to warn Bruce Willis before you do? Getting right 3 in a row might be quite hard in those circumstances. So it's not really a good design, unless you want the nuclear terrorists to win.

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 1) 361

"If you believe congress can't fund war without declaring it, you've already failed constitutional law 101 so you're out."

You seem to be confusing the currently practiced bastardization of Constitutional law which has almost nothing to do what the document says with reading and understanding the Constitution. A couple words have changed in common usage ("well regulated" for example) but for the most part the document is written in clear and plain English. Technicalities and loopholes are invalid interpretation.

If your first order of business isn't dismantling the government of today and restoring our Constitutional democracy with all limitations on goverment power put back in place you shouldn't be voting. The shortcuts and power grabs are illegal if they contradict the Costitution, the supreme court is not empowered to deliberately misinterpret the document. For instance, the NSA warrantless surveillance cannot be legalized by an act of congress nor blessing by the supreme court. It would require Constitutional amendment. No doubt you'd point out that they are doing it regardless. I'd point out the victim's inability to stop the rapist doesn't make rape legal.

'And if you don't see the basic contradiction between 'any systematic disregard of individual rights by definition cannot be in the interest of "the community"''

There are 100 people in town X. All have a right that says none can be convicted of a crime without positive identification. 51% voted for rep Bob. A rule is passed by bob which 15% of people support saying there is a $10 fee for turning right on red and that everyone accused will automatically be assumed identified because it would cost too much to prove identity.

Joe is arrested, asserts the prosecution must prove it was him who turned right. In most cases Joe is treated as one guy vs the interests of the entire community. The entire community is 100 people, every one of them is an individual like Joe but only 15% support this law and 49% didn't vote for the guy who made it. The decision made here would apply equally to 100% of them in Joe's spot therefore honoring Joe's rights strengthens and benefits 100% of the community whereas failing to honor it weakens that right for 100%. Even Rep Bob and the 15% who supported the law have their right weakened if it is denied to Joe.

Two people asserting conflicting rights is another story. A community is nothing more than a collection of individuals and is distinct from government not synonymous with it.

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 1) 361

"That's why the founding fathers were interested so much in making sure we were a republic, and not a full on democracy. They certainly knew how to construct an actual democracy or at least a much closer one than we have today."

They DID construct something much closer to an actual democracy than what we have today. The founding fathers were wealthy merchants and so cared about government having the power to protect their economic interests. Power beyond that didn't matter.

The founding fathers gave the federal government no standing army, only the navy which could be used to repel foreign invaders and more importantly for them protect merchant vessels from pirates. All military power on land was spread among the people. There has never in history been a nation that closely resembled a democracy where the few did not need to fear the collective might of the angry many. It cannot exist.

Similarly, everyone had a right to trial by jury and any jury could nullify the law on a case-by-case basis for any reason. The federal government could create treaties to protect trade, regulate interstate commerce, and provide means for copyrights and patents.

Congress was configured in such a way that only the illusion of participation by everyone was maintained; it was and is a body by the wealthy, for the wealthy, and of the wealthy.

The problem is that in the information age there are too many people who realize we aren't a democracy or a representative republic and the notion that wealth follows merit has been soundly debunked. Today third party candidates get arrested attempting to attend presidential debates, the NSA gets busted in a horrific conspiracy and the president openly supports them without getting impeached. Congress the passes a bill "legalizing" the unconstitutional actions claiming it fixes the problem. Which is a blatant slap in our collective faces... a pointless one because congress does not have the authority to bypass the constitutional requirement of warrants nor does the supreme court let alone the FISA court. Peaceful protestors in the occupy wallstreet movement are beaten, gassed, arrested by order of the officials they elected and the police who are supposed to be arresting anyone interfering in their protest.

"It is a vehicle for legitimacy."

It is a vehicle for the ILLUSION of legitimacy. The problem is the illusion is dispelled. We no longer believe we have representatives. We live in a world where direct democracy is possible and if we are to have representatives we want representatives we believe will do better than ourselves. So we drop the electoral college and we actually have more intelligent people do the voting.

Our society is built on science and we now want what is correct. In the information age of reason and science aristocratic rule by the wealthy at gunpoint is no longer acceptable.

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 2) 361

Do you honestly think the reason the trample it is because they don't know what it says?

They trample on it because it's in their interests to do so the same as every king and every government. That is why the people can nullify their laws in the form of juries and the domestic military power was granted to and distributed among the people in the right to bear arms. They also made ir really hard for the government to give itself power by making amendments difficult.

How are they supposed to make mischief when they can't imprison us, have no federal police force, and there is no standing army for greater than two years in peace time? All they get is the Navy to protect our shores.

Oh wait, you mean people of low IQ have given up every item that gives the people the power to check government in a more meaningful way than asking them to pretty please not screw us?

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 1) 361

"You seem to be in the US, so that will disenfranchise 50% of whites, and 85% of blacks, according to current data."

100 is the median of the scale but more than 50% OVERALL score at or above 100. Getting a 100 is perfectly achievable with a middle school level education since the tests are designed to avoid an education requirement. Elementary, middle, and high school are free in the United States. If your "current data" is correct they'll have disenfranchised themselves.

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 1) 361

"The biggest problem with the idea of having more "intelligent" people be the voters, or the idea of even the most "wise" people be the voters is not necessarily that they are wrong, but that no one believes that they are right."

The idea wasn't to have only the intelligent vote but rather to remove those with such a low IQ they have no chance of really understanding the choices they are making. These individuals are already being told what is right by people more intelligent than them and it is in many cases the persuasiveness of those people rather than reasoned consensus that gets the votes.

By setting the bar near 50% we assure every group and view will remain well represented. So as part of the disqualified group you will still find qualified voters rallying with you.

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 1) 361

That is why the target is average and not high. Combine at least average IQ with understanding the Constitution (who you are voting for and what powers you are giving them) and critical thinking/logic skills and you've got someone who has a CHANCE of understanding the choices they are making.

Whether making good or bad choices people of low IQ lack the ability to understand those choices. But the bar is low enough that every political group will still be represented.

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 1) 361

I'm not saying the IQ minimum would solve everything. I'm just saying that there is no benefit in people of such low intelligence being able to vote.

I also think you should get up to 20 votes, never more than 20 never less than one. One per year you've both been a citizen and physically residing in the US. Maybe drop the minimum voting age to 15. Do the same at the state and city level. Maybe that will encourage young people to get involved and they'll stay that way.

Move away and you begun losing one per year after the first year. Allows people to vote for third parties. Plus it reduces the ability of a large flux of immigrants to change the political landscape over night. You get a voice but you need to give it time to understand what life is like in a place before you go changing it to what was familiar back home, you get the loudest voice when you've been somewhere long enough that it is home. Move around a lot? Maybe you shouldn't pick the mayor for a place you just moved to and are leaving in 3 months anyway.

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 1) 361

Who said anything about retakes? Although once every 10 years to maintain doesn't sound terrible. Ever fail and you are done maybe a retake within 30 days or something but not new chances every 10 years.

The bar at 100 is low on purpose. It eliminates only people with little or no chance of understanding the decisions they are making leaves a large enough pool to fairly represent everyone interests. If the primary thing supporters of an agenda have in common is their very low IQ I can't imagine it being a bad thing for it to go away.

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 1) 361

"50% of the population can't vote based on a test that you can easily improve at simply by practising."

I fail to see a problem with that.

"Some people claim atheism is a religion."

The dictionary says otherwise. We can make up a new word for those who don't follow a religion and keep doing that if you like.

"Also, not all religions are the same, e.g. Buddhists are not nearly as deluded as Christians, who are not nearly as deluded as Muslims, in general terms."

Irrelevant. The Constitution is the highest law in the land, it outranks all public officials at all levels of goverment and mandates a separation of church and state. You check your religion at the door, by law. For the same reason congress lacks the authority to tax churches. Whether a person agrees with the law or not should not be prerequisite to vote, demanding government have absolute obedience to the limits imposed on it by the Constitution should be prerequisite to voting.

If you think representatives should be able to vote in accord with their religion you can both support an amendment to that effect and a firing squad for those who do so before that amendment is made.

Government officials deliberately violating the Constitution and assuming authority not granted to them for any cause is treason.

"If you believe any citizen should be able to own a nuclear ICBM or place land mines in the front yard, you're out."

It's the law. Period. See the above.

Random civilians with widely distributed military power are less likely to be able to affect widespread tyranny than random people in a chain of command that answers to those who might try to seize power from the people. The bigger the weapon the more expensive and the more people it takes to afford them. Nobody should have biological weapons, chemical weapons, or nuclear weapons. But so long as the government has been granted our permission to have nuclear subs we've retained our right as the people to have such weapons to point back at them.

"If you think rights are not a balance between opposing forces, and that include both freedom from interference and freedom to prosper and be happy, you are out."

What I said is not inconsistent with that.

A person in a toll violation case being denied a "beyond reasonable doubt" burden, the right to a court appointed attorney, the right to trial by jury, and being automatically assumed as the driver because the state wrote that it could do so in the statute is a good example. This violates a number of provisions in the Constitution and a body empowered by the Constitution (states and therefore their governments are a constitutional construct) lacks the authority to do so. These provisions exist to bar the government from infringing on the rights of the people, when ANY individual objects to this it is not their personal right vs the state it is the right on 100% of the individuals in the nation vs the small subset who support and benefit from cheaper toll enforcement.

The court is also ultimately empowered by the Constitution and therefore lacks the authority to issue a ruling which violates its provisions.

Again, Constitutional enforcement should be absolute. Believing as much is prerequisite to successful participation in our constitutional democracy. That issues pre-empts anything you disagree with in the specifics. But there is always changing it, either via the mechanisms in the document or popular amendment since the people are not limited by the terms of the Constitution and ca overrule it as jurors or change it by popular vote.

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 1) 361

"You can be really smart and the worst kind of racist, intolerant bigot, or simply a total self-centered jerk who will not care that his decisions disfranchise everyone as long as he benefits."

Of course you can. But a 101+ IQ doesn't make you really smart more than 5 out of 10 people are smart enough to score over 100 so racists, jerks, and caring people would all be well represented. The only people excluded would be those with essentially no chance of understanding the decisions they are making and the impact of those decisions.

A high IQ doesn't even mean you are smart, only low IQ's have been shown to indicate performance or success (low performance and lack of success). Having a 150 vs 115 hasn't been poven to matter at all.

An empathy test might be useful to give politicians but not voters. There is no benefit in electing the guy whose wife just died because you feel bad for them. And those voters would be more likely to be duped by politicians trying to sway them with plea to emotion rhetoric. Like making people afraid of terrorists so they will agree to give up freedoms or spreading fear of the dangers of making moonshine so they can keep it illegal, raise tax revenue that lowers the taxes of the wealthy and put lots of red tape in place that makes it difficult for new startups to compete with large established companies.

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin