Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Unintended consequences (Score 1) 192

The realtor doesn't always have the luxury of arranging written permission from someone who's away at work or otherwise unavailable

Look, the realtor stands to make tens of thousands of dollars off the sale of a million dollar house. I don't have a lot of sympathy that they may need to spend an extra thirty minutes driving back to the property to talk to the neighbors because they weren't there on the first knock. Hell, give the house owner a week to secure permission, and leave some boilerplate forms with them, and make the owners talk to the neighbors, they'll probably have a better success rate anyways.

Comment Re:Unintended consequences (Score 1) 192

Speaking from years of experience, I can assure you that it is NOT easy to get.
Most people are intrigued by the technology, some become very enthusiastic
But perhaps one in twenty people shut down their brains the moment they hear "camera"

Using the inverse math, you've effectively stated that 95% of people give permission. The other 5% value their privacy, and have concerns about new technology. That sounds like a pretty reasonably success ratio to me.
Why do you say it is so hard to get permission then? Because somebody has to talk to the neighbors in advance, and you may not get a response if you pop by in the middle of the day?

Comment Re:Yes (Score 1) 688

Do arms include RPG's, heavy machine guns, howitzers, or suitcase nukes? While I'm in favor of legal private ownership of stun guns and tasers, there are basically no reasonable people who think nuclear weapons should be available to all citizens.

From wikipedia: A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems.

Therefore, nuclear weapon == Arms
It thus follows that no reasonable person believes in the 2nd amendment.

This is obviously an inflammatory statement to a lot of people, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Comment Re:No excuse for them to be "unemployed" (Score 4, Interesting) 751

I know some elderly people who barely worked an honest day in their life. Now they expect to live on Social Security because it's what a "civilized society does."

Since they are elderly, and have few work-gained skills, I would suspect they aren't a good employee for anyone at this stage in their life. Are you suggesting that as a society we should kill them, and have them executed for not being a good enough worker? Or are you simply suggesting to let them starve to death and die of exposure? What exactly are they supposed to "give back" to earn their benefits? And what should we as a society do if they refuse?

Comment Re:4/5 in favor (Score 4, Insightful) 751

Are you aware that you personally, could quit your job, go on welfare, and sit around at home all day, and scrape by with just enough money to eat and keep a roof over your head? Why do you work when you don't "have to"?

Now apply those thoughts of why you work, to other people. It turns out most people are similar, and have hopes and aspirations, want to provide a better life for their families, and want to pursue hobbies, and go to fun places, and so on. The vast majority of people have ambition! Do you really think that fear of starvation is the ONLY thing that makes people get a job?

You are showing an extreme lack of empathy, and making a lot of assumptions about poor people not having hopes and dreams. That honestly says a lot more about yourself than you realize.

Submission + - Sucking CO2 Out of the Atmosphere to Create Carbon Nanofibers->

Zothecula writes: Carbon nanofibers hold tremendous potential. But could the greatest gift these little wonders offer humanity be not what they bring into the world but what they take out of it? Scientists have developed a technique that could pull the mounting carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and transform it into carbon nanofibers, resulting in raw materials for use in anything from sports gear to commercial airliners.
Link to Original Source

Comment Re:Confessed? (Score 2) 244

Pleading guilty or taking a plea bargain is entirely different than confessing to a crime. In a plea bargain, you are admitting guilt for a bartered reduction in penalty, and have a contract in writing. If you confess to police, you have no more defense. The police have no capacity to grant you leniency for cooperating, no matter what they claim. Instead, you are making it easier for the court system to convict you, by a HUGE margin. You are not only confessing that you committed a crime, but also confirming that a crime occurred. Now the courts have less incentive to offer a plea bargain, and will offer a worse deal or no deal, because they are more certain of a conviction. By confessing, you are giving away the biggest, and often times only, bargaining chip you have.

Comment Re:dump trump (Score 1) 686

From the blog of Dan M. Kahan:

Characterizing a blog post on exploratory probing of a new science comprehension measure as a “study” , scores of commentators gleefully crowed that the data showed tea party members were "more science literate,” "better at understanding science" etc. than non-members.

My observation that the size of the effect was “trivial,” and my statement that the “statistical” significance level was practically meaningless and as likely to disappear as reappear in any future survey (where one observes a “p-value” very close to 0.05, then one should expect half of the attempted replications to have a p-value above 0.05 and half below that) was conveniently ignored (indeed, writers tried to add force to the reported result by using meaningless terms like “solid” etc. to the describe it).

Also ignored, of course, was that liberals scored higher than conservatives on the same measure and in the same dataset.

It's an interesting read: http://www.culturalcognition.n...

Comment Re:dump trump (Score 4, Insightful) 686

Did you even notice that I specifically said politicians, and not voters? Voters on the left and right have crazy anti-science beliefs, but lets looks at politicians who expressed anti-vaccine statements recently: Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Donald Trump... notice any trends there?

And why on earth are you saying pro-green energy is anti-science? Politicians promoting more renewable energy instead of fossil fuels are almost entirely driven by concern about climate change (hint: that's a pro-science stance).

Meanwhile, another republican nominee, Ted Cruz, wants to ban *birth control*!

The difference is, no major politicians from the democrats hold strong anti-science views, while as far as I know, every republican candidate favors teaching intelligent design, and dismisses climate change.

Comment Re:dump trump (Score 4, Insightful) 686

"Smart" does not mean "agrees with my politics", and only someone who's deeply insecure about the validity of his own beliefs would suggest that it does

Republican politicians consistently demonstrate and champion anti-scientific beliefs across a wide spectrum, most notably climate science and basic biology (evolution). A technical news website tends to attract pro-science people that are generally more educated and smarter than the average population. Is it any surprise that highly educated people tend to lean away from the political party that favors religion over science?

Comment Re:Non biased? (Score 3, Insightful) 458

Counterpoint- Lets say your goal to reduce funding to national security succeeds-

Do you think the spying components will lose money first? Or will the oversight components be first on the chopping block? You want a weaker govt, that means less oversight, right?

Since the govt can't afford to run the program, maybe it will be outsourced to a private company that can provide national security features, and as a bonus they can monetize the information they get by spying, to fund the program by selling directed advertising. Its a win-win for you: Now the govt doesn't have any information on you, and you don't have to pay extra taxes.

Is that the future you want? I understand that point of view just fine, but you are not following it to the logical conclusions.

Comment Re:Non biased? (Score 5, Insightful) 458

Yeah, sure: he only wants radical leftists as 'running mates'.

they cheerfully and successfully painted the Tea Party as right wing, racist, radicals

A fairly large certain percentage of left wingers and right wingers agree that the govt is broken. The centrist response is to keep the status quo. The left wing response is to blame money in politics as having undue influence, hurting democracy and turning it into an oligarchy, and the fix is to limit money, and impose higher taxes on the super wealthy to try to create a more balanced society. The right wing response is to blame government for being bad at governing, and the solution is to dismantle the government, in particular using the starve the beast methodology, to cripple the power the government has by limiting money, and reducing taxes.

The tea party, so named after an anti-tax movement, has as its core ideology, the idea of lowering taxes and preventing government from functioning. That is a radical idea- that govt works best when it is completely broken and can't act at all. This naturally would create a power vacuum where corporations and oligarchs would gain power. I don't understand how the solution to a broken government is to break it more? It's an irrational platform, designed at its very core to shift power into the hands of unelected power brokers. Needless to say, that goes against Lessig's goals, and is why he chooses a left wing running mate.

Marriage is the sole cause of divorce.