Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Just tell me (Score 1) 463

by eegad (#48151927) Attached to: Positive Ebola Test In Second Texas Health Worker
I'd say as long as the info we keep hearing is self-contradictory, the answer is yes. Obama says to the African nations, go ahead and ride the bus. The CDC advises against this. We're hearing that the mortality rate is 70% yet these are the numbers being reported: https://www.tickermadness.com/... And then of course there is just gross incompetence and stupidity. Who thought it'd be a good idea for health care workers treating an Ebola patient in Dallas to fly around on commuter planes with the rest of us? Maybe we could organize a community potluck with the rest of them for moral support?

Comment: Re:In lost the will to live ... (Score 1) 795

by eegad (#47968875) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Non-violence can be derived from any ethical position that views others as equal to yourself in all ways.

Actually, I don't think I agree with this. If everyone is equal and there are a limited amount of resources, why isn't everyone allowed to compete (or fight if necessary) for those resources? To the victor go the spoils? On the contrary, I think it is only when we have some sense of the dignity of the human person or a sense of self-sacrifice for another "equal" that we could hope for non-violence. Not all ethical positions contain a sense of this dignity. Certainly not all contain a sense of self-sacrifice. Ayn Rand's objectivism is all about self-interest. When the interests of the totally self-interested collide with one another, violence is possible and probable. What ethical systems teach self-sacrificial concern (or might I even proffer the word love) for others?

Comment: Re:Why not? (Score 1) 961

by eegad (#45528129) Attached to: Why Scott Adams Wished Death On His Dad
A few thoughts...

Human dignity isn't results based. It doesn't depend on whether someone recovers or not. It also isn't dependent on how someone is treated. When someone is mistreated, we understand that it's mistreatment *because* of their inherent dignity. Nobody can take away that dignity - they can only respect or ignore it.

How we treat the suffering and dying has importance and implications for the rest of us too, not just those suffering. It affects how *we* view and treat everyone else and how we view the gift of life and the human person in general. Ditto for the treatment of the unborn.

Suffering can be redemptive. Even if you don't believe in any religious significance, it's clear that suffering can radically change a person's outlook on their life and the purpose of life and the relationships in their life. Those things are important. To them and us.

Comment: Why not? (Score 1) 961

by eegad (#45527491) Attached to: Why Scott Adams Wished Death On His Dad
Because human life has a dignity and purpose far beyond that of a cat. And because suffering can be meaningful and important even though it's difficult. If you want an example, look at a crucifix.

It's interesting that someone who's supposedly so concerned about the sufferings of a person can wish a slow and painful death on someone else. Nobody who believes in and fights for the dignity of the human person *wishes* for your dad to suffer, Scott. Don't let your sorrow and grief turn into hatred and malice.

Comment: Actually, the tea is... (Score 3, Informative) 104

by eegad (#43141653) Attached to: Google Doodle Celebrates Birthday of Douglas Adams
... a strong Brownian Motion producer, which is essential for the Infinite Improbability Drive which powers Zaphod's stolen spaceship, the Heart of Gold.

So Adams must have mentioned tea in more than one body of work, which isn't too surprising for an Englishman.

BTW, editors, it's Douglas Adams' birthday, not Douglas Adam's birthday. Although, according to infinite improbability, there is probably a Douglas Adam whose birthday it is today as well. Oh dear...
Businesses

+ - Ask Slashdot: Time for Optional Pay Business Models? 1

Submitted by eegad
eegad (588763) writes "I've been thinking a lot about how much information I give to technology companies like Google and Facebook and how I'm not super comfortable with what I even dimly know about how they're handling and selling it. Is it time for major companies like this that offer arguably utility-like services for free in exchange for info to start giving customers a choice about how to "pay" for their service? I'd much rather pony up a monthly fee to access all the Google services I use, for example, and be assured that no tracking or selling of my information is going on. I'm not aware of how much money these companies might make from selling data about a particular individual, but could it possibly be more than the $20 or $30 a month I'd happily fork over to know that my privacy is a little more secure? Is this a pipe dream or are there other people who would happily pay for their private use of these services? What kinds of costs or problems could be involved with companies implementing this type of dual business model?"

Comment: potential problem: activist targeting (Score 1) 325

by eegad (#42364199) Attached to: Facebook Test Will Let You Message Strangers For $1
So, let's say that a lot of facebook users are so ticked off at a company that they organize a campaign to spam the owner. The owner suddenly has hundreds of thousands or millions of facebook communications, all costing $1 to each sender. And yes, this can and has been done with postal mail, but it's a lot more likely to happen if it's a click of a button away.

In fact, I suggest we all write to Mark Zuckerberg right now and complain...

Comment: context overlap (Score 2) 133

by eegad (#41379979) Attached to: More Evidence That Multitasking Reduces Productivity
Without having read the article, it seems like this study might have a flaw. The brief description seems to imply an overlap in the two tasks: memorizing read words and hearing unrelated words. I'm not sure most types of multitasking are like this. I can context switch as long as there's enough switched. Besides, isn't real multitasking the ability to make progress on one task and then ignore it for a bit while making progress on another task? I hardly ever attempt to do *simultaneous tasks*.

6 Curses = 1 Hexahex

Working...