Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:"Born atheist" quite a leap (Score 1) 506

by cas2000 (#49143059) Attached to: Machine Intelligence and Religion

As an atheist, I am completely confident in saying that while it is theoretically possible that some entity or force that could be described as "god" or "godlike" might exist, I am absolutely certain that the patriarchal god of middle-eastern sheep-herders is not and can not be it.

That god is just too absurd, too far from any description of reality, and far too self-contradictory.....and, if by some horrible chance the world is far fucking weirder than it seems to be and that god did exist, then it would be an evil god deserving our hatred and resistance, not our worship.

it's not a choice between a) not believing in god(s) and b) believing in YOUR god. There are far more possibilities than that, an infinite variety of god delusions - and many gods that are, while just as fictitious as yours, far more credible.

Comment: Re:FFS (Score 1) 395

At one time opium was legal in the US. It was banned due to serious problems with it's abuse.

it was banned because it was popular with chinese immigrants, thus giving police (and the white society who owned them) the power to harass imprison them

Alcohol was at one time banned as well but it proved too popular to ban.

alcohol was too popular with WHITES to remain banned.

Comment: Re:FFS (Score 1) 395

Having received morphine and other opiates in hospital for intense pain, i can assure you that it is indeed very pleasurable. One moment you are in excruciating pain, the next in bliss. I've tried street heroin once too, many years ago and IMO it wasn't anywhere near as good or pleasurable as the morphine - probably because i wasn't in any significant physical or emotional pain at the certainly wasn't even good enough to be worth bothering to repeat the experience.

i've also had numerous prescriptions for oxycodone (aka "hillbilly heroin", reputedly far more addictive than heroin) for chronic pain management over the years, and have managed to remain non-addicted (i.e. i take it when i'm in pain and don't even think about it when i'm not in pain). this is because aside from occasional bouts of excruciating pain, my life isn't terrible.

It has been proven many times that addiction is a result of miserable living conditions - social, economic, and/or psychological - not a result of the drugs themselves. the addiction is to the relief of pain, whether physical or psychological.

Comment: Re:FFS (Score 1) 395

you say that as if addiction itself is an inherently and undeniably bad thing, but just stop and think about that for a minute: as long as the addict has a good, clean supply what's so bad about addiction?

in any case, addiction is a result of miserable social and economic conditions rather than any drug - this has been proven in numerous studies.

Comment: two responses are inevitable (Score 2) 265

by cas2000 (#49099195) Attached to: The Robots That Will Put Coders Out of Work

the first, due to happen right now, is a bunch of smug posts claiming that programmers are too smart and talented for anything like that to happen to them. obsolescence is for the merit-less poor, people doing crappy non-programming, non-geek jobs - people who actually deserve to be treated like shit. it could never happen to them, they're far too important.

in a few years, when it is actually happening to them, there'll be a bunch of whining posts about how unfair it is that programmers have to compete with machines for their jobs, that was never supposed to happen to the super-smart, super-talented entitled rich white dudes...they'll all be crying something like "Google, why hast thou forsaken me?"

even then, these stupid entitled fucks will cling to their idiotic libertarian beliefs and refuse to believe that the owner class, the 1%, the bosses, the venture capitalists don't give a fuck about them and never have - if they think of programmers at all it's with resentment that they currently need some people who are difficult to replace....all worker units are meant to be slot-in replacements for each other, and they'll invest large sums of money to make sure that's the case for everyone.

Comment: Re:democratize machine learning (Score 1) 96

by cas2000 (#49097611) Attached to: How Machine Learning Ate Microsoft

it's bullshit. they're not "democratizing" anything, because selling a product and democracy are completely unrelated.

the word they should have used was "commercialise". or perhaps "commoditise". either of those are far more appropriate in that context, and actually make sense.

but they sound like grubby self-centred commercialism in comparison to something noble and uplifting like democratise.

Comment: Re:I blame the FDA (Score 1) 365

by cas2000 (#49078701) Attached to: Smoking Is Even Deadlier Than Previously Thought

wrong. on multiple counts.

firstly, i have no objection at all to laws banning smoking inside buildings - even dens of stupidity like casinos. but not because second-hand smoke is harmful to passersby and others who experience short-term or casual exposure, but because *workers* shouldn't have to spend hours trapped in *prolonged* exposure - unlike casual exposure there is some evidence of that causing health problems. employers have an obligation to provide a safe workplace for their employees and that includes reducing or eliminating the risk of toxic exposure. customers and other visitors can leave whenever they want. employees can't, not if they want to eat or pay their bills or rent.

as for vaping, there's no harm from that so there's absolutely no justification for banning it anywhere - it doesn't even smell bad.

secondly, i'm not a smoker, i'm an ex-smoker. unlike many ex-smokers, i don't need to bolster my will-power by demonising cigarettes or smokers. i don't like the smell of cigarette smoke any more, but that's MY problem...same as it's my problem that i can't stand most perfumes including the ghastly crap in stuff like shampoo, and absolutely loathe the smell of petrol and, even worse, diesel. i wouldn't want to be trapped in an enclosed space with any of them but out in the open I don't have any right to impose my preferences on anyone else, especially not by redefining the law merely so that i don't have to smell bad smells.

So take your sanctimonious bullshit attitude and shove that up your fucking arse.

ps: casinos are for fucking idiot losers who refuse to understand even the most basic statistics so who gives a shit what happens to them, anyway? in that situation, any health problems from second hand smoke are merely evolution in action.

Comment: Re:Smoke weed every day (Score 1) 365

by cas2000 (#49056867) Attached to: Smoking Is Even Deadlier Than Previously Thought

it's also useless for 99.99999% of the illnesses that those pharmaceuticals are used for. cannabis is a useful treatment for some diseases. it's not a panacea. nothing is.

"natural" is not a synonym for "better" or "harmless". those who think it is are idiots - for example, i once knew one idiot hippy who routinely kept her child sedated with valerian and thought it was OK because "valerian is natural"

you know what else is "natural"? strychnine from the nux vomica plant is fucking natural.

Comment: Re:I blame the FDA (Score 2) 365

by cas2000 (#49056803) Attached to: Smoking Is Even Deadlier Than Previously Thought

so by your "logic", we should ban cars and trucks that use petrol or diesel - both of which cause far more damage to people forced to breathe the exhaust fumes than smoking or especially vaping. diesel exhaust is especially dangerous - highly carcinogenic.

btw, even for actual smoking, second-hand smoke has no health effect on casual exposure. there has been a small effect proven for people forced to work for long hours in extremely smoky environments (like bars were before smoking bans) - workplace regulations enforcing adequate ventilation would have been at least as effective as smoking bans.

10 to the minus 6th power mouthwashes = 1 Microscope