Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:One possible argument for lunar industrializati (Score 1) 67

It seems like the Moon's surface could be a fantastic place for an absurdly large optical telescope.

Put it on the back side and you don't have to worry about any light pollution from the Earth. And, you can also set up a huge radio telescope back there because you won't have to worry about any interference from all of the the Earth's broadcast communications.

Comment Re:last chance to buy quality Sharp products (Score -1, Flamebait) 41

None. Sadly, idiots like that run around screaming about Obama and how O is going to take their guns/rights.
These are the same kind of idiots that back police for killing a kid in the street for being black, but has no issues when a bunch of mental right wing nut jobs take over gov. buildings in a terrorists action, they will back it.

Comment Re:Two opposed postions on abortion, both libertar (Score 1) 428

No. It would make them sentient dolphins, not "non-human people".

Whatever you want to call them - do you think that they would not be entitled to, at the minimum, a right to life to the same degree as humans (i.e. killing them should be treated as murder)?

If so, then what determines who has that right and who doesn't? Sentience? But zygotes aren't sentient.

Easy peasy!

23 chromosomes is a normal number for humans, but not all humans have 23 chromosomes - Down syndrome, XYY males and XXX females etc.

Ultimately, all this is just accumulated mutations and selection of them over the course of that 6 million years of divergence. By itself, that's still a quantitative difference, not qualitative - i.e. we know that things are different, sure, but they're also different between humans on genetic level. The question is, what exactly about those missing or extra chromosomes and DNA difference is responsible for having or not having natural rights? If you could incrementally edit a chimp's genome to make it human, at which point during the process is it "human enough"?

Comment Re:Two opposed postions on abortion, both libertar (Score 1) 428

Anyone intelligent enough to post on /. is intelligent enough to know that half the DNA isn't enough.

Enough for what? To eventually grow a human, sure. But to be a person? I don't know.

Thus, if self-awareness is the measure of humanity/personhood, it's just as ok to "put down" an eighteen month old human as it is to kill an unwanted dog.

You're correct - i.e. logically speaking, either both are okay, or neither is okay.

Or, possibly, the definition of "person" is more extensive than self-awareness. But I still don't see why it should have anything to do with DNA makeup.

I fail to see the difference between the two.

It's because the definition of "person" is not strict, and for most people who haven't given it consideration, it's basically "I know it when I see it". However, surely you can imagine a hypothetical non-human person, even under whatever subjective definition you subscribe to? E.g. suppose we do determine that dolphins are "intelligent enough", after all, and devise means to communicate with them with a full-fledged language - would that not make them persons?

"Human", on the other hand, is defined entirely in strict biological terms. It's still not a strict definition if you consider corner cases (which extinct hominids were human and which weren't, for example? and at which point the result of our future evolution can no longer be called "human" and becomes a different species?), but for practical purposes, you can just do a DNA test.

Where did I indicate such a thing???

You indicated that natural rights belong to humans, and humans are defined by DNA. I don't see why such differentiation by DNA is fundamentally different from differentiating within homo sapiens sapiens by DNA; the only difference is degree. Just as you can determine the difference between humans and chimps by comparing their genes, so you can determine the difference between different human populations by looking at some genetic markers or others (and yes, there are some that correlate pretty well with black skin, for example).

And don't pretend like the fact that one case straddles species boundary and the other one doesn't makes a huge difference - "species" themselves are a rather arbitrary human construct stemming from our desire to neatly label and categorize everything, but nature doesn't really care about such things. If you want to talk about objective facts, you'll have to show a difference in quality rather than quantity of differences (or demonstrate that some quantity is a threshold meaningful for some reason other than "because I said so").

It is relevant, because with it you boil the argument down to objective facts instead of philosophical and socio-political arguments.

You can't boil the argument down without agreeing on what the argument is about. This particular one is whether personhood or humanity is the defining factor for possessing natural rights, including right to life. Yes, if you arbitrarily resolve this question in favor of humanity, then you can boil it down to objective facts - DNA etc. But that first decision is arbitrary, and not everyone agrees to it.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 2) 239

People don't tend to stay at those places long, but if you haven't been able to get other work it can help pay bills until you can.

Swiping wallets from tourists at a busy attraction can also help you pay the bills until you can, but I don't think that's a valid argument in favor of the person doing so.

Comment Re:Two opposed postions on abortion, both libertar (Score 1) 428

Answer, part #1: Because the the human brain develops naturally from that zygote.

Sure, but why start with zygote? Why not the egg? Why not before? Any point in this chain is pretty arbitrary, and even if you pick one (like you did with "has its own DNA"), it's not clear what it has to do with personhood.

Answer, part #2: Babies with severe microcephaly have no self-awareness, but are still humans.

Sure. And it's a valid question to ask whether they should have the same rights as a self-aware human being. Ditto for braindead people.

Because their DNA is not human.

But then you're not basing your definition of rights on whether someone is a person or not. You're basing it on whether they're human or not (or rather - because there isn't really a hard delimiter between species in general - on whether someone is "sufficiently human"). I don't see why this is, in principle, any better than denying on a scattering of other genetic markers that correspond to dark skin etc.

Biology is irrelevant here, because it does not really concern itself with issues such as "personhood" and "natural rights".

Comment Re:Two opposed postions on abortion, both libertar (Score 1) 428

So self-awareness, and brain in general, is not required to be a person?

Why aren't animals persons, then, and why don't they get all the same rights that a person should? Just because they have a wrong DNA? Does it also apply to humans with "the wrong DNA" (e.g. not sufficiently white)?

Comment Re:huge savings on ink (Score 1) 141

e-ink is hugely expensive. This saves them a ton of money. but don't turn it on negative contrast or you'll be replacing toner cartridges like mad.

Doofus. e-ink doesn't use toner, it uses ink. You don't put toner carts into your ink-jet printer, do you?

Turning on negative can cause the e-ink to leak out of the e-book and get all over your hands. Impossible to wash off. And don't get me started on the damage that running an e-ink device through the washing machine with a load of whites can cause.

E-ink is expensive because it is a dead-end technology. There are so many more uses for LCD displays that volume drives prices down. e-ink works for e-book readers, that's about all. You can read your e-books on a full-function tablet device, so why buy something locked to one vendor? (Yes, I know that e-ink is very good for reading things so e-book readers have a niche.)

Comment Re:What year is this? (Score 1) 159

The article mentions 6mbps, that isn't fast enough to support many modern and common household internet usages

Like what? It's enough for TV-quality streaming video,

No, this must be one of the few times where they actually mean 6 MILLI-bits per second (mbps) and not 6 MEGA-bits per second (Mbps). Six mbps means you get one character every, umm, 27 minutes. Six Mbps would be fast enough for streaming all kinds of things.

Comment Re:APorsche Self-Drive? (Score 1) 210

Taking note of how you perceived the driving conditions to be, unaware that you are incapable of accurately assessing them, at the expense of the safety of others. There is no excuse for being a twat.

Lets see...roads clear...check.

Weather conditions good...check

Car has ability to travel at high speeds, brake better than normal cars, handle better than other cars....and I know how to drive it....check.

What's your problem with this?

The posted speed is often arbitrary....

Or, are you just afraid of speed period?

Slashdot Top Deals

"What a wonder is USENET; such wholesale production of conjecture from such a trifling investment in fact." -- Carl S. Gutekunst

Working...