Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Last Chance - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence (Score 1) 169

What you seem to be missing is that War is a macro-aggressive, acute failure of society. Microaggression is a stealthy, sinister, chronic failure of society that is far more widespread and far more damaging to the long-term health of humanity than is an acute War that has a beginning and an end.

Others have addressed the first major flaw in this argument, which is that killing people is worse than being mean to them.

But there's another flaw, which is your apparent belief that microaggression is something new. It is definitely not. People have always been nasty to each other, and we're significantly less nasty to each other today than ever before. The notion of microaggression is perhaps the best proof: previous generations didn't even bother thinking about microaggression, because it was just normal. Today, we recognize this subtle form of personal attack and work to expose it and thereby reduce it.

You should read the first few chapters of Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature", in which he documents historical evidence of the ways in which people were nasty to each other. He focuses mostly on physical nastiness, violence, but lots of other sorts of nastiness are covered in passing, or obviously implied. Society is much, much better than it used to be. Empathy for strangers is normal today. It wasn't always.

Comment Re:Things are looking up (Score 1) 169

In 1914, there was no entertainment as you imagine.

So radio, films, plays, books, and concerts didn't exist?

Note the correction of the year. 1940 was obviously a typo, the discussion was about 1914.

Radio was demonstrated but not used commercially in 1914. No, films didn't exist. Plays and concerts did, but high-quality productions were pretty much limited to major cities. Books, yes.

books were expensive and rare, etc.

Poppycock, etc.

I have difficulty believing anyone could be so completely ignorant of history. But apparently you are.

Compared to today, yes, books were expensive and rare. Most everything was dramatically more expensive than it is today, in terms of what a person with the median income could afford, and that included books. In 1914 most homes had a small number of books, far fewer than today. But the typical person also had far less leisure time.

Comment Re:Bill Gates failed elementary statistics (Score 1) 145

I don't see why you wouldn't want unified decision making on, e.g. the optimal size of a classroom. There's some right answer. More reach leads to more statistical power to a answer questions in a more correct/realistic way. More reach means the right answer can be distributed to all the interested parties once its complete.

Comment Re:Book misses major points (Score 1) 145

To say nothing of the spillover effects of granting wishes. The most common wish is apparently for a clubhouse of some kind, which of course ebenefits other children. Then you have great productions (like BatKid day) that make all of a city or the whole country feel good. And then there are teh "meeting celebrity" type wishes, which seem good for the celebrities as well as the child.

Comment Re:iFixit is NOT unbiased (Score 1) 243

They only sell the repair kits because reductions in the size of devices got to the point where people rarely had the necessary tools. iFixit's margins are higher on the parts anyway & they'd certainly stop selling them if it weren't necessary for their present business...

Comment Re:iFixit is NOT unbiased (Score 1) 243

Come back in 10 years and try to say that again.

iFixit exists because at a certain period in time between humongous PCs with MANY discrete replaceable elements (like the original "portable" compaq) and all in one devices, there is/was a place for them. I can remember going to radio shack with my father to plug the vacuum tubes we pulled out of the TV into a test device to figure out which one had gone bad and causing problems. iFixit's rants that Apple is making it hard for them is the equivalent of radio shack bitching on how those new transistorized TV's were bad for the environment because you couldn't as easily test for a failed transistor.

People didn't want easily repairable (but flaky) TV's, they wanted something that was reliable for the period of time they were going to use them. Getting rid of the heat/weight/connector issues by integrating has been going on for decades.

Same thing now with phones, tablets & even laptops (as my son's macbook proves) & the complaints of the radio shacks of the world whining that things should stay the same so that they can continue to make a buck are irrelevant.

Comment Re:iFixit is NOT unbiased (Score 1) 243

No the point you are attempting to make is invalid (at least for Apple). Piecemeal replacements of parts that are not recycled responsibly is ecologically unsound. Apple, when you take a defective device in, repairs and then reconditions the device to be resold if economical and responsibly recycles the bad parts/entire device in any case. Apple also accepts old phones (including non-apple) when people buy new gear.

iFixit sells parts that end up in random landfills because they do not recover the bad parts and people in general just toss them in the trash. iFixit's (& your) pretense that repairable == ecological is false.

When iFixit starts collecting the bad parts when they sell replacements and details how they are recycling them, then they can talk about being ecologically responsible. Until then it's just the bitching of the head of a buggy whip corporation seeing his profits go down as cars (thin lightweight large-screen phones that need to be glued together to remain structurally sound) replace horses (smaller thicker phones with discrete, easily replaceable parts).

Pascal is a language for children wanting to be naughty. -- Dr. Kasi Ananthanarayanan