Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The longer you live...Cancer could be your rewa (Score 1) 273

by Shortguy881 (#48804179) Attached to: Silicon Valley's Quest To Extend Life 'Well Beyond 120'
Every person has innumerous mutations throughout their lifetime. With ~37 trillion cells constantly replicating, it happens a lot. The human body is also very good at catching and correcting this errors. Some are genetically predisposed to better handle mutations which is why cancers are genetic. As you age, you're immune system becomes more and more compromised increasing your risk of cancer.

My point is, our body already knows how to fight cancer very well. Using this knowledge, there is no reason to think we couldn't completely prevent cancer by increasing our immune responses to both mutagens and mutations.

Comment: Re:And? (Score 1) 448

by Shortguy881 (#48774785) Attached to: Unbundling Cable TV: Be Careful What You Wish For
Working for a cable company, that is the general perception of most people outside the industry. What you and they also fail to consider is the packages (Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, Spike, +11 others) are all from the same company, in this case Viacom. The content providers, like Viacom, are the ones most threatened by al a carte programming. We as a cable company would love this model as we could grab many more subscribers while reducing costs paid to the content providers.

Here is an example of how these content deals work. Viacom has several niche channels that wouldn't sell without being tied to huge money makers like Comedy Central. Viacom doesn't want its channels to fail, so it'll agree to sell us CC only if we also buy their crappy channels. The majority of the cost of cable comes from these kind of deals through the numerous content providers that make up the whole cable television market. This is why we have 200+ channels of which 15 or so are any good.

Comment: Re:Sounds like Agile (Score 1) 16

by Shortguy881 (#48747613) Attached to: Inside Amsterdam's Efforts To Become a Smart City
I completely agree. I'd also love to see some large federal programs in the US dissolved and passed to the states. Then we would have 50 test grounds to see what works and what doesn't. Unsuccessful states could then adopt programs from the successful states.

I may take some criticism for this, but the first area should be education. The federal government has completely failed the people in this regard. I honestly think the current situation is so bad, its worth creating test programs across the 50 states, guaranteeing some will fail, to find out what really works. Also as an after thought, because someone will ask, success could be measured based on a combination of graduation rates, college enrollment and job placement of recent public education graduates from each state.

Another great area would be healthcare.

Of course now that I've written this down, I realize it would never happen. The federal government would need to willingly relinquish control over something. Then they would need to use empirical evidence to determine the best course of action for the country. Neither of these things I expect to happen without violent protest from one side or another.

Comment: Re:Null hypothesis (Score 1) 556

I think the AC is agnostic, not religious, and you seemed to completely miss his point. The point I got from the AC was that atheism is just as open ended as theism. Both require the belief in something that currently has no evidence to support it. There is no evidence to support a god and lack of evidence doesn't prove non-existence.

Then you go onto assert that it is an active attempt to negate a certain belief

No idea where you got this from.

I do like "No god is more likely than some god, given no evidence" as it clearly shows how atheism makes as much sense as theism.

Comment: Re:What Will They Do... (Score 1) 327

by Shortguy881 (#48736373) Attached to: The Coming Decline of 'Made In China'
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. There is a finite amounts of it. Every human takes away from that finite amount, the energy need to make that human survive comes from that amount, and any additional amount used to make their life better comes from that amount. The more people, the less extra that can be used purely for increased standard of living. At some point you just have a bunch of people and the resources to keep them alive. There is nothing left to make them happy.

Like I said, humans are resources who can create resources.

Immanuel Kant would disagree. People are an end in themselves and not a means to an end. If you do not understand that, I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you.

We are the most valuable resource of all.


"Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." -- "Ali Baba Bunny" [1957, Chuck Jones]