Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Ignorance? (Score 2) 235

You are right suggesting the universe is a computer simulation no more scientific than believing there is a god (unless you have a way to prove it). There is nothing wrong with thinking about alternatives. The problem comes when you base your actions that cannot prove or disprove, and force other people to believe your speculation. Or state it as the "gospel truth" when it is just speculation.

It may well be that I am imagining everybody else, but the moment I start killing other people because they are not really real it becomes a problem.

Comment Re:Confessed? (Score 1) 244

I am not actually saying that working someone to death is not worse than just killing them. It might well be. I am saying the motive of greed is not as bad intentionally trying to kill someone, because you hate them.

To me a large part what drives how someone should be punished is what drives them to do it, e.g. if someone accidentally kill you then the punishment should be less than if they intentionally do it.

Comment Re:How about spreading knowledge of how to murder? (Score 1) 244

If I was planning to do a bank robbery or murder, I would not base my plans of a TV show, while they may show some actual police processes they are probably full of make believe too. While I am not familiar with actual crime investigations processes I can tell there are lot of flaws things I know about.

One example seems to be how they almost always seem to send in two people to apprehend a known armed criminal, when I would think a swat team would usually sent in. I know this is to build drama, but I doubt it is realistic.

Or the hacker that can seem to hack anything, my favorite scene is from NCIS when they are defending against a hacker. The other guy starts typing on the same keyboard in order to help. Besides that if you where hacking someones computer why would make windows flash up on someones screen, and if you for some reason wanted and could do that, why would you even let them type. This is to build suspense (in this case maybe comedy) not to to accurately portray reality.

Comment Re:Confessed? (Score 2) 244

Hitler was worse, while I am able believe more people where killed in rubber plantations than death camps. The main purpose of the death camps was to kill, they specifically had gas chambers to kill people. While the plantations being cruel and inhumane, (well all forms of slavery really) their primary purpose was to make money, so greed was the driving factor not hate.


The group selected to die, about three-quarters of the total, included almost all children, women with small children, all the elderly, and all those who appeared on brief and superficial inspection by an SS doctor not to be completely fit.

If you wanted a work force you would not kill the children, since they would grow up to be labor. In fact why would you even capture them if you didn't want them to work. The fact is Hilter wanted them all dead, if he could get some work out of them while killing them why not.

This is the difference between murder and manslaughter, and to me murder is much worse.

Comment Re:There is no reason for any drought to continue (Score 1) 390

To me worth (to the economy) is how much your net to contribution to the economy will be in the future. Not how much money you have now, earned in the past, or where given. If you are simply collecting rent, on old ideas, or property, you are worthless to society no matter how much net worth you have.

Money builds nothing, it is the people who build, design the plant, mine the material, provide logistics, ... that provide benefit to the economy, the guy that goes and says: right transfer that money does very little but gets the most reward. If they died tomorrow someone else would get that money and could do exactly the same thing.

But you can make up any arbitrary meaning of worth you like, I suppose. The currently most accepted one "surprisingly" favors the wealthy, even though it does not seem to be the most logical one.

Comment Re:There is no reason for any drought to continue (Score 1) 390

No the money you create goes directly to the rich, then "trickles down" to the poor so in the end the poor have less as a proportion of the total money.

Even if you give the money directly to the poor that money will quickly be sucked up the rich by charging more for goods and services.

Comment Re:Nobody has "forgotten" anything; it's about mon (Score 1) 118

That is why I believe funding of trials should not be done by pharmaceutical companies. It is a conflict of interest from beginning. Somethings by their very nature should be funded by taxes, because it is too important to simply let the organization with the biggest wallet win.

Comment Re:Let's just not seek "real democracy", mkay? (Score 1) 686

Nonsense while democracy where we vote on absolutely everything may not be the best, you should only vote on something that you actually took the time to investigate. What we have is just the wolves voting on what is dinner. We had slavery under monarchy, republics, .... Yes a democracy is not perfect you still need a constitution, you need to ensure you population is educated, get rid of the philosophy of you should go out and vote even if you have no idea of what the issues are. Ensure that fiscal responsibility is maintained. Have bureaucrats managing the day to running of stuff. Possibly other checks and balances.

Any political system that blindly follows some ideal is wrong, but we could do with moving much more in the direction of people actually having a say, than the current system where people are basically fooled into believing they have a say, when they are just voting for 2 different sets of people sponsored by the same organizations.

Comment Re:But wouldn't everyone be better off... (Score 1) 231

Sort answer no.

When you target people "yankin it" you are targeting the significant majority (yes women do it too, they may not be "yankin it" but they use other methods). The only way I can see stopping is if everyone can have sex with whoever they want whenever they want, ain't going to happen. The desire for sex is a fundamental part of human nature, you are fooling yourself if you believe you can just ban it.

Drugs have been around for a long time, from wikipedia, at least 10,000 years, if you are being honest with yourself you would include alcohol in that, so once again you are trying to ban something that the vast majority of people do.

The question remains what is wrong with people "yankin it" or taking drugs as long as they are not significantly hurting someone else.

Comment Re:I think this is a wider issue than just email (Score 1) 161

While true I believe it is true in the short term ignoring it does not make the issue go away. If it is recurring issue then it is much better the long run to express your feelings, and sometimes that feeling is anger.

Of course there are limits, you need to find a middle ground (don't go beating anyone up). Letting people walk all over you does lead to a happy life either.

Comment Re:I have no fear of AI, but fear AI weapons (Score 1) 313

I would say the number is quite low, Ok I am just guessing, but murder rates (even in the US) are low, 4.7 per 100,000 you are more than twice as likely to kill yourself. To me to get rates that low it is more than just fear of getting caught. And the rates are not based on punishment, countries with much more liberal penal systems have much lower crime rates. I go to a market every week, you could easily steal from but most people don't, that's why it works. Make people live well enough, and feel valued then most people will not rob that liquor store.

Society works because the vast majority of people are honest most of the time. It is a huge waste of resources if you did not trust anyone, and checked everything anybody ever said to you. Yes psychopaths can take advantage of that, but if you get a high percentage of them people will soon stop trusting and psychopaths would loose their advantage.

Secondly why would you want to rob a liquor store anyway how much money would you get? If it became a real problem they would just move to electronic payment only, then there would be no cash at all to steel.

Comment Re:How much is an AG these days? (Score 1) 256

The parties are all guilty, the politicians, the lobbyists, and the system that allows it. If I hire an assassin am I not doing anything wrong because I don't actually commit the murder.

Sure people should be allowed to say what you want, but do it from the street corner or on your blog, or some other public forum. The moment you can have a private chat with a senator then it is wrong. I am all for informing politicians, but if you do so it should be done publicly so people who disagree with can have a mechanism to raise objections to your point of view. The only exception to this is national security however even then the conversion should eventually be released once the information is no longer critical.

I am not for the statement: you have nothing to worry about, if you have nothing to hide, but when it comes to people who's decisions can easily effect hundreds of millions of peoples lives, then the "information" they are being given should be up for public scrutiny.

<< WAIT >>