Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Fermi's paradox is hubris (Score 1) 206

by Intrepid imaginaut (#48925581) Attached to: Gamma-ray Bursts May Explain Fermi's Paradox

Some good points there. I think in a stable environmental niche, intelligence would never develop, most of the oldest species have been in such niches as long as they've been around. However that an entire biosphere which remains permanently environmentally stable exists out there is something I find difficult to credit. I mean sure it's possible but the universe is a tumultuous place.

In such changing environments adaptability is king, and intelligence is the best enabler of adaptability.

Comment: Re:Fermi's paradox is hubris (Score 1) 206

by Intrepid imaginaut (#48922609) Attached to: Gamma-ray Bursts May Explain Fermi's Paradox

Intelligence is the ultimate evolutionary adaption, I believe that life inevitably tends towards higher and higher levels of it. Consider, we're ill suited for anything but temperate climates in our bare skin, and even then we'd make easy prey for predators, being neither fast nor especially strong.

Add a sprinkle of intelligence and suddenly we're wearing animal skins in the cold, building fires at night, and protecting ourselves with spears.

Intelligence is absolutely a survival trait, perhaps the most powerful one.

Comment: Re:Yet we have the tech (Score 1) 330

Fact is, those people don't get a choice. They are barely surviving, and they are facing men who hoarded resources to procure weapons and other tools that help them to stay in power.

Men? Shitheadery knows no gender. Ever heard of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Imelda Marcos, Yingluck Shinawatra, the Womens Sultanate, Margaret Thatcher? Anyway one would have thought that such conditions were fertile ground for a revolution of the people.

Something missing from your narrative perhaps?

You are utterly convinced that poverty is a choice

Oh I never said anyone chose to be poor. They can choose not to be victims however, and they can choose not to listen to people who want them to be victims, objects, acted upon.

They can choose to stand up against corruption and fight for a better future. Many of them are, and their collective fortunes are improving accordingly, even if they individually remain poor, and for those I have nothing but the highest regard. I don't blame the ones that just go with the flow mind you, but they don't get much sympathy either.

argument is quite impossible without proper third party moderator.

Yes, the free environment of slashdot with its darned new concepts and open exchange of ideas must burn a cunt such as yourself.

Burn harder. Your time is coming to an end.

Comment: Re:Yet we have the tech (Score 1) 330

while billions live in abject misery

Maybe if they sorted out their own shitty political systems and made their politicians and beaurocracy, public sector, what have you accountable they would be able to enjoy the fruits of modern civilisation along with the rest of us.

Have you ever lived in a developing country? As soon as anyone pokes their head above the crowd there's a queue of plebs with pieces of paper in their hands stretching around the corner looking for bribes, their cut, their piece of the pie, and before too long there's no pie left at all. This is the reality.

Which has already been explained to you three times.

Yes capitalism is harnessed greed and that's a good thing. I rejoice to see corporations battling it out, I weep to see a single clear winner.

Comment: Re:"They" is us (Score 1) 330

I'm none too happy with the banks myself, property bubbles completely loot middle class wealth and that needs to never happen again, but look at all the posters in this story gibbering about equality of income - do they have any understanding of how insane that is? Clearly not.

So they indulge in masturbatory fantasies about the indefinable paradise that awaits humanity after all the bourgeoise are killed off. Or was that the jews. No, wait, the intellectuals. White men?

Better they use their minds instead of parroting the delusions of a nineteenth century habitual drunk.

Comment: Re:Yet we have the tech (Score 1) 330

Right. You are here, suggesting that corruption exists in a vacuum rather than as a result of our resource distribution system creating overwhelming motivator for those in leadership position to become corrupt in order to grab more resources?

"Our" resource distribution system, capitalism, has regulations to prevent corruption from doing too much damage. It's a bit hit and miss but overall things have been steadily improving for the average person.

The distribution systems in poor countries may or may not have similar regulations, but they aren't enforced if they are in place. Having lived in many such countries I know whereof I speak.

I'm not even sure what "marxist" means here. Pretty much every single economist in the world subscribes to the same notion. The only thing they disagree with one another is what is the better alternative that would serve both needs and desires of imperfect human beings while keeping their vices in check. Are they all marxist in your opinion?

I wasn't aware you'd been elected king of the economists. Apologies your royal spokesperson for Mises and Keynes, perhaps someday someone will do communism right and not end up killing 100 million people to achieve nothing. The congratulatory coronation fruitbasket shall be along in the post presently.

Comment: Re:Yet we have the tech (Score 1) 330

Attempts to rebuild it resulted in massive suppression from systems using the old distribution system who understood that all it takes is one such new system becoming functional to destroy them.

Ahahaha! I swear you marxists live in as much of a fairy tale world as any conspiracy nut.

The reason poor countries are poor is because of their shitty corrupt politicians. See for reference what happened to Zimbabwe, or the President of South Africa looting all of the UK foreign aid to build his palace, or the way that the government in the Philippines can't account for over 90% of the aid it received for Haiyan.

"Derived directly from our resource-limited past" my ass, the only thing that matches the zeal of the marxist is their ignorance.

Comment: Re:"They" is us (Score 1) 330

Ahahaha you people. Seriously, which do you think is more important to the 99% or whatever, the fact that their standard of living is continually improving, or that someone is shopping for her third sports car, somewhere out there.

Moral panic mongers are finding this whole information age thing quite the botherance, aren't they.

Comment: Re:Escaping only helps you until a war. (Score 1) 330

A bunch of rich people with no real military protecting them will be like ripe fruit for the picking (as they have been over and over and over for centuries).

Not really no, for example during the French revolution which supposedly directly targeted the wealthy, the majority of those that went to visit Madame were not nobles.

I'm not entirely sure what the fixation is with income equality anyway, shouldn't people be thinking more about a continually improving standard of living? I mean surely that's what matters most to almost everyone. I know I don't wake up every morning bitterly jealous that someone else is richer them myself, or upset that I can't buy a Lear jet, seems like a pretty sorry way to go through life.

I don't have a problem with people being richer than me as long as they aren't using their wealth to fuck with people, like the banks did with their artificially inflated property bubble. Yes, when one party is providing 90+ % of the price for a good or service, that party controls the price. So, fuck the banks basically. But not due for ideological reasons.

Comment: Re:You nerds need to get over yourselves (Score 5, Insightful) 199

by Intrepid imaginaut (#48911581) Attached to: Why Coding Is Not the New Literacy

Nope, let's not even justify it to that extent. Coding is a job description, and an increasingly blue collar one like plumber or electrician at that. This whole push by giant corporations to get into schools (!) is simply a means for them to reduce future worker salaries and ensure a steady supply of bright young idiots all fresh'n'ready to be abused and burned out.

End of.

+ - Wikipedia Bans Feminist Editors-> 2

Submitted by Intrepid imaginaut
Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) writes "The supreme court of Wikipedia, the arbitration committee, has decided to ban five editors from making corrections to articles about feminism, in an attempt to stop a long-running edit war over the entry on the "Gamergate controversy".

“No sanctions at all were proposed against any of Gamergate’s warriors, save for a few disposable accounts created specifically for the purpose of being sanctioned,” said Mark Bernstein, a writer and Wikipedia editor.

In contrast, he says, “by my informal count, every feminist active in the area is to be sanctioned. This takes care of social justice warriors with a vengeance — not only do the Gamergaters get to rewrite their own page (and Zoe Quinn’s, Brianna Wu’s, Anita Sarkeesian’s, etc); feminists are to be purged en bloc from the encyclopedia.”"

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Popcorn time! (Score 1) 374

by Intrepid imaginaut (#48892331) Attached to: Behind the MOOC Harassment Charges That Stunned MIT

Why stop there, the vast majority of rapes take place within a 30 year window, according to your calculations 100% of women have been violently raped. Hell, let's push it up to 40, women who don't even exist have been raped.

The point you're missing is that the numbers used were exaggerated to illustrate the lunacy of feminist statistics, they don't resemble anything anyone sane might imagine as real.

And feel free to ignore the rest of the comment while you're at it, including the linked paper. Call that axe grinding if you like.

Comment: Re:Popcorn time! (Score 4, Informative) 374

by Intrepid imaginaut (#48891709) Attached to: Behind the MOOC Harassment Charges That Stunned MIT

I've heard claims that one in four women will be raped at some point in their lives, and have yet to hear any sort of data-based rebuttal.

Look at the actual crime reporting figures, locally rape convictions stand at around 8 per 100,000. Now let's get crazy and say only one in twenty rapes and or sexual assault charges result in a conviction. Let's get even crazier and say one in twenty people who are raped even report the matter. That leaves us with 3200 per 100,000, or about one in thirty. Still almost an order of magnitude smaller than feminist figures and almost certainly still a gigantic exaggeration.

So where do they come up with these moral panic inducing mountains of statistical tripe?

To understand this we have to look at the methods they use to take these surveys. Look at the technical reports. You'll find lots of stuff like:

Drafting the questionnaire, it was important to avoid terms such as ‘rape’, ‘violence’ or ‘stalking’, because different women might have different preconceived ideas on the types of violence usually associated with these terms, and the types of perpetrators involved.

Terms such as rape are left out of questionnaires and it's left to the researchers (all of whom happen to be feminist trained) to decide whether or not rape took place. So if someone answered that they were verbally abused using a sexual slur or had sex while drunk, it's the researcher who decides if the women was sexually attacked.

And take a look at California's shiny new feminist inspired affirmative consent laws if you want to know whether having sex after a drink is rape or not.

This gets further distorted by the public mouthpieces, who translate these numbers into 25% of all women were raped. No, they weren't. That one in four women in modern western democracies, one in forty was raped is not a prospect that the rational mind can entertain.

This is a technique that was pioneered by Mary Koss, a feminist researcher who decided that the official unbiased government reports weren't giving her the answers she wanted, so she set up her own surveys in order to amend the statistics accordingly.

Post survey examination of the outcomes however revealed that around three quarters of the women she identified as having been raped did not consider themselves victims of rape, and almost half of them had sex with their supposed attackers after the event identified as a rape had occurred, and continued dating them.

So, having internalised that, now you'll have to start asking questions like "how did these flim flam artists manage to pull the wool over everyone's eyes for 40 years" and "why are people in power listening to them" and so on. These are good questions to ponder. While you're pondering them some light reading for you:

All theoretical chemistry is really physics; and all theoretical chemists know it. -- Richard P. Feynman