Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:Those Anti-Science Liberals. (Score 1) 414

Science is a process, and it will not always fit nicely into peoples political views. Sometimes ideas you hold most dearly are wrong.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” - Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Marcia Angell

If we're gonna accept witchdoctor medicine (with iffy at best science behind it), might as well let in the homeopaths, no? Fair is fair.

Submission + - The Private Sector to Take Responsibity for Global Warming

blackbeak writes: Just checked the weather report for today at and saw the Open Letter from Global CEOs to World Leaders Urging Concrete Climate Action. Note how the cosignatory CEOs all affirm that "the private sector has a responsibility". This is eerily reminiscent of the 1970's Crying Indian TV commercial put out by Keep America Beautiful, Inc.

For those unaware few, KAB, Inc. was (and is) a non-profit front group set up by and for large corporate interests that worked tirelessly against environmental legislation such as "bottle bills" and recycling laws. The (fake) Indian Ad redirected the national attention away from the corporate entities that remain the overwhelming source of air pollution.

Anyone care to compare the accumulated carbon output of the corporate sector with that of the private sector? How many exhalations per hour will we be allowed in the corporately controlled and globally legislated future?

Comment Re:A Boom in Civilization (Score 2, Interesting) 227

Previous phases of human exploration had a number of common or frequent driving elements that space exploration is not likely to have. Such as: zealous religious missionary activities, conquest at behest of the king, racist judgement and condemnation of indigenous cultures, imperialist overreach into another country for minerals, slaves or other goods, etc. Most of that ideology is driven by the social thinkers/drivers at the top (or the powers behind the throne) and the privileged class just below that, not by the average citizens who prefer to just raise their families in peace. Humans will probably not even make it into the "interstellar community" if the species can't shake off the rule of sociopath oligarchs.

If we can assume we've evolved enough to travel among the stars, we would have solved a number of social problems (anger management?) and tech ones as well. I would expect we'd be way, way beyond playing "Billy Goat's Bluff".

Ok, there's plenty of space out there. We might miss a few battles just looking up from earth.

Comment Re:A Boom in Civilization (Score 1) 227

Think about it, war is extremely unlikely among interstellar species. With that level of technology, you're not gonna be hunting for food. Nor will scarcity of materials be a problem. Come on, you can travel among the stars, and you're gonna find one particular solar system that you just gotta have, right? Because this one system is just soooo cool, and there are no others out there like it. So, you figure "I'll just kill off the other interstellar species using the planets there and it'll be all mine!"

Or maybe it's the other scenario: Some insect-like aliens are gonna scour the universe just to hunt down other life forms, just 'cause that's what scary lookin' (by human standards) aliens do.

Anyone who believes inter-species battles is likely to be encountered in space needs some serious help.

Comment Re:The average human being (Score 4, Insightful) 291

Confessions should not be admissible as evidence in court unless the jurors are given a full, uncut tape of the interrogation that led up to that confession. Along with that, jurors should be allowed to directly question attorneys and witnesses.

And informed of the jury nullification option.

Comment Re:Biased Institutions FTW (Score 1) 784

In their defense, I want them to do their due diligence whenever they get a report.....

Sure, they should. But how about requiring completion of some sort of certification course for informants before they can be considered qualified to report situations that require the police or CPS to respond to activities where no child is actually in any immediate or obvious danger? Also, how about getting the informant's contact details, so they can be held financially liable for the trouble and expense they are likely to cause by such over-the-top reporting? (Anyone ever have to pay a lawyer before?)

Do we really need such eager busybodies to call in that "I see an 8 year old out in the cold without a warm hat! And it's freezing out here! Get CPS, quick!", when they haven't even bothered to observe that the kid is simply going from the family car to the house? Because that's where it's headed, folks.

Comment Re:So.. what? (Score 1) 255

Soo.. overfishing + nuclear contamination to fisheries + global warming + other radioactive environmental damage = less significant? What if we throw in a massive Gulf oil spill? Kind of a crappy argument to claim that because X is worse, Y + X is less significant.

I'll answer your question; massive releases of nuclear contaminants into the environment will raise the number of cancers, birth defects and other health issues that are related to radioactive contamination and lower the environment's (already stressed) ability to supply quality foodstuffs.

Again, I'd like to point out that "we" (the general population of the world) are not responsible for the bulk of the environmental damage that has happened or is happening. "We" don't control/make decisions for Tepco, BP, Monsanto, etc., etc. Those sublimely paid, decision-making executives are responsible and should be held directly accountable for their actions. And how much environmental damage do you think the war machine causes? (Cue: sock puppets.) That's not "we" either. You'll know who "we" are when you're inside a FEMA camp!

Back to the cute kitten videos.....

Comment The fate of the Internet (Score 2) 126

Because of the ever increasing amounts of internet insecurity, shills paid to push corporate/government agendas and rebuke/dismiss detractors, "sock puppet" and AI posters, overzealous copyright take-down operations, pay-only access to verified (ie: useful) information, spamming, spoofing, bandwidth throttling, spying, tracking, personal information gathering, legal constraints and considerations, over-suspicion of anyone not 100% politically "correct" or aligned with power, agenda based "news", "echo effect" search results, and probably some other stuff I can't think of right now, the internet is quickly losing it's ability to be much other than a channel for light entertainment.

Has the internet hit it's nadir? It's probably only a matter of time before e-commerce fails in a major way due to these security leaks. And it may also be way too late to be useful in organizing any type of real grassroots socio-political change. Let's just go watch cute kittens on YouTube.

Comment Re:Other loud noises (Score 1) 272

this is just stoopid...we've already done so much damage to this planet...


I had no part in the decision making process that led to any significant world or environment damaging, and I doubt you did either, unless you have a hand in directing activities of a industrial company or are involved in military decision making. You may very likely not even know anyone who did. Get it straight, the robber barons and financially powerful that direct the ecologically damaging activities are not "We". Not without contorting the meaning so as to blame the consumers for how the products used are produced. Were "we" dumping agent orange in Vietnam? "We" level mountaintops? Funny, I don't recall getting my share of the profits!

Little known fact: The iconic "Crying Indian" commercial of the 1970's was produced by a consortium of industrial polluters in order to throw the popular focus back on individuals at a time when industrial pollution was an exponentially greater problem. Sure, people threw garbage out their car window, and that's bad, but the cumulative damage from that was a tiny fraction of what industry was doing.

"Survey says..." -- Richard Dawson, weenie, on "Family Feud"