Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: And it all comes down to greed (Score 1) 542 542

So what does it mean that capitalism is founded on that very idea, that everyone will do what is in their own best interest?

It means that the ideological structure of capitalism will eventually get in the way of human progress, which seems to be happening now, and needs to be replaced. The question is, will this happen through reform or revolution?

Comment Re:Oh boy, here we go... (Score 1) 218 218

Then there will be the sliver of comments about developing additional sources of zero-carbon sources of energy. Traditional fission reactors have their own pollution problems. Fusion is still too experimental; no one has yet to demonstrate a scalable method of doing that. But there is another power metal: thorium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I'm not saying that solar and wind are pie-in-the-sky. Those sources of renewable power have their place. We should not shut the door, though, to additional options. Just as we need diversity in our population, we need diversity in our power solutions.

Plus, don't count out Bell Lab's favorite project goal: "And then something wonderful happens."

Comment Re:And it all comes down to greed (Score 1) 542 542

But there is an even more basic error with geoskd's premise: when machines can make most of our material needs for free, labor won't lose any value. There is an infinite demand for labor.

Maybe in the long term, but that doesn't help someone who needs to pay his rent today, not in a few centuries.

Comment Re:And it all comes down to greed (Score 1) 542 542

The third choice is to start your own business.

No, it isn't, because you have neither a business idea, capital, nor business skills. This is yet another example of false consciousness, a lie told by the system to vilify its victims.

The third choice is to run for office.

You will lose without backing. To get backing you must make deals. Those deals transform you into one of the two candidates, since you're now owned by the same people. This, too, is a mirage of a choice built by the system. Such illusions mask the ugly reality, which makes flaws difficult to repair. And frankly, we can't afford that anymore: we're juggling an ever-growing list of issues caused by wilful stupidity, and if it doesn't stop we are going to drop one of them on our toes again.

Comment Re:Nice. (Score 2) 228 228

But if you are a dumb enough to act out alone against any of them then you either need to hope to be very lucky or should they so choose to make a point they will swat you like a fly without a second thought, the likelihood of the swatting only increases with how much publicity they will get from using you as an example.

And the reason they bother making an example out of you is because they have no power aside from fear. As you demonstrate, it's quite effective, especially once the victim starts rationalizing their perfectly natural fear of death out of misplaced shame, because at that point they'll start attacking anyone who overcomes theirs.

Comment Re:And it all comes down to greed (Score 3, Interesting) 542 542

Only got yourself to blame, bub.

Only if you aren't familiar with the concept of false consciousness. Your job got shipped overseas, so now you can only afford imported goods. You voted for a candidate because there's only two choices and the other is outright insane. You didn't have a choice and thus are not to blame.

Simply admit you fell for the lies of a conman, join your local labour union or comparable organization, and push it ever leftward. The only thing the system wants or needs from you is your support, overt or silent, so refuse to give it unless you get something in return, besides dreams of making it rich and getting to be the oppressor yourself.

Comment Re:And it all comes down to greed (Score 1) 542 542

Cue ever-decreasing circle as consumers earn less and want even more for it, in the hope of compensating for their shrinking earnings, thus repeating the circle. No single tier here is to blame; we ALL are in a more abstract manner. The blame lies squarely with basic human nature and the words "I want".

And yet that nature didn't stop us from enforcing enviromental standards. Because it turns out "human nature" is just a bunch of inherited instincts that can be overruled by reason and managed by the society through regulation and ideology. The only question is whether this is done in time to save capitalism, like after WWII, or if the current crisis will be the final one.

Comment Re:Obvious deflection. (Score 1) 232 232

As to your suggestion that I'm a traitor or... my god... French? How dare you...

Because how is "law is what is enforced" any different from "I, for one, welcome our new whatever overlords"?

I think I might sniffle into my chocolate milk now.

Is that some kind of Parisian sex maneuver?

Anyhoo, you don't like landmines...

I don't care about landmines one way or another, I take issues with your pre-emptive surrender to any and all usurpers.

Comment Re:Why Fight It? (Score 1) 133 133

If you're going to lie to try to convince me of something, give me a little credit and make it a plausible lie.

They aren't trying to convince you, they're trying to confirm their beliefs. They're making a big show about believing absurd propositions because they think - rightly, in all likelihood - that they'll be rejected by their peer group if they deviate from its dogma, and also because they get ecstasy - feelings of transcendence - when fighting their chosen enemies. That's the downside of secularization: people transferred their religious feelings into nations, ideologies and political parties, which thus gained the power religion once had, thus explaining 20th century.

In other words, Religious Right is exactly what it says in the name. Bengie was just doing their religious "y'all sinners gonna burn in Hell" trolling duties, and simply being lazy about it.

Comment Re:poorly researched article, if at all (Score 1) 495 495

And it took only actually watching the video to note that it reads -45.9ft when it hits the ground, so if that is to be taken seriously (assuming it isn't damaged), the take-off point was about 45ft higher than the house, and true altitude above ground was over 300ft at the point it was shot.

Comment Re:Might want to reconsider paying the fine... (Score 1) 495 495

It is a toy and not an aircraft.

The categories are not mutually exclusive; whether something is or is not a toy has no relevance to the question of whether it is or is not an aircraft. You think the law doesn't apply, the FAA says it does, the courts will have to decide.

Comment Re:80 versus 200 with no points of reference (Score 2) 495 495

200 feet is still pretty close.

Yes, but if I shoot someone's car who parked is on the street 200 ft outside my property and assert it was my right because he was parked "too close" to my property, the law is not going to consider "pretty close" to be close enough.

Airspace in general is the public domain. At what point it above your property it becomes yours is a legal grey area.

Comment Re:Why does his telemetry show ground being -46ft? (Score 1) 495 495

So when it hits the ground, telemetry shows -45.9ft which means he was actually over the neighbor's house at 154ft and not the 200ft he claims.

You fail basic math; the difference between 200 and -45.9 is 245.9.

Also, it was well over 200ft at the start. I didn't go frame by frame, but I did manage to pause at very close to the right point and it appears to read 262ft when shot. That would suggest a fall of over 300ft if the -45ft at the end is taken seriously, but I suspect it might just be damaged at that point...

"And do you think (fop that I am) that I could be the Scarlet Pumpernickel?" -- Looney Tunes, The Scarlet Pumpernickel (1950, Chuck Jones)

Working...