Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Pretty ridiculous (Score 1) 235

by adiposity (#46432597) Attached to: Facebook To Pay City $200K-a-Year For a Neighborhood Cop

When a citizen is attempting to effect the arrest, it is much easier for the person being arrested to simply claim they were being assaulted and fought back and there is no simple way to determine who is right.

But with a police officer, there is a simple way to determine who is right: the officer.

Comment: Re: The more simple you make it the less complex i (Score 1) 876

by adiposity (#46197673) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Why Are We Still Writing Text-Based Code?


What you are describing is using a bunch of shell programs to achieve a simple task. Up to a certain level of complexity, these prewritten programs are the best way to accomplish such tasks. Thankfully, most programming languages both have many such predefined functions, as well as being able to call the system shell.

But yes, the shell is an environment where it is easy to get certain things done without the overhead of most languages. Heck, it is easier to write your script at the command line than to save it as a shell script (a type of programming language). Does that mean anything?

Use the right tool for the job. A hammer is simpler than a jackhammer. It can't easily accomplish what the other can, though. If you want to write a "program" that does the above sort, write it in sh, or bash. Oh wait, you already did!

Comment: Re:Another webkit is irrelevent (Score 2) 181

While as a developer, I appreciated the diversity in rendering engines Opera brought to the table, as a user, I don't think I would care. If Opera was better than Chrome with Presto, it could be better with Blink--with the added benefit of lots of obscure sites actually working.

How many Opera users actually celebrated that Opera worked on less websites than Chrome as a good thing?

Now, if Presto was faster (which it could be, at times), then that's another argument. But diversity wasn't what made them fans, IMO.

Comment: Re:Everyone creates arbitrary lines (Score 1) 628

by adiposity (#46021669) Attached to: 200 Dolphins Await Slaughter In Japan's Taiji Cove

I am not really basing this on my own experiences, but on mine and the shared experiences of many humans. Most humans simply do not believe plants are as aware, or able to feel, as much as say, a dog. I realize that is just a statistic I am making up, but really, I think most people would agree.

You might think I have no love for plants. It isn't true, though. My grandmother and my great-grandfather were both landscapers, and I have been caring for plants as long as I can remember. In my own home I have planted more than 15 trees, 4 cacti, 15 shrubs, many vines, and I have an herb garden. I take care of these plants carefully and I feel sad when they die or start to wither.

But, I eat their fruit and leaves (for the edible ones), and I don't feel any compunction about it. My basil for example, only lives one year, and I replant it each year, and eat the leaves. I don't know if this is offensive to you, or not. To me, it is not.

Even though I have (what I consider) a healthy respect for plant life, I don't feel the same when someone pulls weeds, as I do when someone steps on a snail (I have more sympathy for the snail). I can't really explain it, but I imagine it has to do with snails being closer on the evolutionary ladder to humans, than bermuda grass.

Comment: Re:Everyone creates arbitrary lines (Score 2) 628

by adiposity (#46019467) Attached to: 200 Dolphins Await Slaughter In Japan's Taiji Cove

> I don't think animal life is worth preserving. So now what?

So, you don't do anything to preserve that life. Others may disagree.

I was just saying, the idea of preserving species based on our idea of what they think or feel doesn't really allow us to do the same for plants. Plants are so different from humans that we are unlikely to ever have much sympathy or empathy for their "thoughts" or "feelings," which from the human perspective don't really even exist.

I don't disagree that preservation of plant life is important, though. I just suggest that the only rational approach is to preserve things based on their value to us as a planet, species, country, or family. Certainly the idea of not eating dogs while eating pigs is an irrational one from an intelligence standpoint. On the other hand, dogs have proven to be good companions, and some people may see a big value in preserving that.

I wasn't making any conclusions on who was right, as much as explaining why the idea of plant intelligence/emotion is not really a strong argument in treating them more like humans, or pets.

Comment: Re:Everyone creates arbitrary lines (Score 4, Insightful) 628

by adiposity (#46018195) Attached to: 200 Dolphins Await Slaughter In Japan's Taiji Cove

If a thought has no meaning to us, as humans, then it is hard to develop any sympathy for that thought. Since sympathy is essentially the basis for treating intelligent animals "humanely," it is pretty hard to swallow that we should give the same deference to seaweed as chimps.

But, you can argue for any mode of thought. Perhaps oxygen molecules don't like being inhaled, and we should just let ourselves die from suffocation. It's kind of silly to approach life that way, though. A better approach might be to preserve that which we think is worth being preserved. There isn't really any way to do that other than a selfish point of view (from the point of the species, the region, or the individual). If there is no value in saving the life of all seaweed, then we don't do it. If there is a value in keeping dolphins alive, then we do it.

To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)