Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 288

You don't have any natural rights to be free from tigers or from gravity. But you DO have the natural expectation that another rational being will understand that if they attack you, they are waiving their own claim on living peacefully. That you don't grasp this is pretty amazing, really.

You'll find that your idea of "rights" disappears quite quickly as soon as any functioning society breaks down.

My "idea" of rights exists at any scale and under any circumstances. That's the entire point. Irrational people do indeed look to take advantage circumstances in which they feel willing to take the chance that their use of violence will go unchallenged because of unpleasant or unexpected circumstances. Which doesn't change the fact that they lose their claim to life when they deny you yours. That's the right you naturally have: to use (or have used on your behalf) the violence necessary to defend your life. Why? Because rational people don't kill other people except in self defense. Those who initiate the violence waive their rights to live in peace.

You're confusing having a right with happening to have the power to defend it at some particular time. These are not the same thing.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 288

Exactly, because in the jungle there are no rights

Oh, I get it now. You think that human beings aren't any different in their cognitive abilities, capacity for reason, and ability to think abstractly and communicate than are, say, tigers or lemurs.

I don't need it, but I need a government to tell others that.

No, you can tell them yourself, and if they are too irrational to digest the concept, and you're too weak to defend against violent, irrational people, then you need a government to help you protect your rights.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 288

So you think that just because you decided to kill them, they didn't have the right to live? That's really your take on things?

If you initiate violence, you are giving up your OWN claim on your right to live. You have the right up until you infringe on someone else's. That's simple, rational stuff. If you can't use reason in your world view, then you are by definition looking at things irrationally. If you act irrationally, and it results in you doing something like killing those 9 people, then you have waived your own right to your life. Do you get that? You don't need a government to tell you that. But if you can't figure it out without a government telling you that, please do the rest of us a favor and don't do anything dangerous like voting.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 288

In a modern society arms are useless.

Really? Then why does every single political leader - across the spectrum, including flaming lefty tyrants, eastern European strongmen, laid-back Scandinavian royalty and elected officials, mayors of cities, etc. - have armed protection at their disposal?

Why do police departments train in the use of arms? Why do militaries, even strictly defensive ones, understand the need to be able to use arms?

It's nice for you that you live in a fantasy world where there is no need for a 90-pound woman to ever defend herself against a man three times her size. Where is it, exactly, that you live that there are absolutely no violent people, no robberies, no rapes, no crimes that endanger lives? Please be specific, and if you would, please link to some reports that show your zero crime rate. Not that you will, of course, because you're full of it, and you know it.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 288

What a load of shit. Without a government, you have no rights. Go live in a jungle sometime...

Wow, you really haven't thought this through, have you? You should.

So, you and another 100 people are in the jungle. 10 of you decide to get together in a group (you know, assembling) and chant something they think is important (you know ... speaking). Who is giving them the perfectly natural behavioral elbow room to assemble and express themselves? The other 90 people who aren't even paying attention to them? The trees? No. These are perfect examples of "natural rights." If some of the other 90 people decide to get together and force those 10 people to no longer gather, or no longer speak their minds, they are infringing on their freedom to assemble and speak.

The US constitution recognizes this, and its first amendment explicitly says that the government can't infringe on that right. There's no place in the constitution that defines the right to assemble or speak ... those are a given. They are self-evident, natural freedoms that can only be limited by other people or groups. Those 10 people don't need the other 90 to do anything in order for their group of 10 to be able to gather and speak. They can do that without any action or permission from anybody. If someone decides to take action shut them up, that's infringement of that right.

Without a government, a society, a rule of law, etc there is no such thing as 'rights'.

Nonsense. Without rule of law, there is no protection of rights. You really think that your right to speak comes from the government? You truly don't understand that it's the government's job to prevent other people (and those same government institutions) from forcibly shutting you up?

Comment Re:sunfire / in my stellerator / makes me... happy (Score 1) 97

The Wendelstein was only built to investigate how well stellarators can confine plasma over a long period of time. No fusion will actually happen in this facility.

Incorrect. The Wendelstein will reach pressures and temperatures necessary for fusion. Fusion will occur in it unless something seriously goes wrong. What won't happen is electricity generation.

You are correct on the 50 years though - the director of the Wendelstein mentioned that there will need to be another generation of test systems before power generation will be able to be seriously considered.

Comment Re:The problem is lackadaisical battery manufactur (Score 1) 305

And the sloth and complacency of the battery manufacturers vs. the tech industry is what's holding us back. If they were investing into the R&D to keep up with Intel and Moore's law...

And how many trillions would this cost? There's actually massive investments into battery technology. We've come a long ways in the last 20 years. But consider, they're figuring out that we had batteries way back in BC times. The Greeks had them, sort of, they think they were used for electroplating stuff.

But they started entering common use in the 19th century. We've put a huge amount of development work into them. But batteries, it turns out, run into physical laws much quicker than the 'completely new' field of semi-conductor technology. But we're running into the physical laws with semi-conductors now, which is why we haven't seen clock speeds increasing like they used to, and why parallel operations are far more important than they used to be, why we're seeing quad core and even octa-core processors in consumer machines today.

Comment Re:Oh good, a reason (Score 4, Informative) 343

I hadn't read or heard much about this guy, but since he seems like he'll be the #3 between Cruz and Trump (who are both so unelectable it hurts) it's good to know that he's as awful a candidate as anyone else the Republicans have up.

Rubio is the one who is currently running a campaign ad that ends with his talking about sending the military to fight ISIS, shipping anyone that they capture to Guantanamo Bay, and how "they'll tell us what they know".

Yes, that's right, we have a candidate for president who openly admits that he plans to commit war crimes.

Comment Re:How about we treat the rest of the world better (Score 5, Insightful) 343

Indeed. Our post WWII conduct with other countries was often extremely shameful. I termed my service as 'cleaning up the messes of our parents and grandparents'.

We should have a policy of conducting ourselves with honor - we make a deal, we keep it. We don't support people who are anti-ethical to our beliefs. Democracy isn't wrong, even if the population doesn't like us. Keep acting honorably and they'll eventually change their minds.

Slashdot Top Deals

I THINK THEY SHOULD CONTINUE the policy of not giving a Nobel Prize for paneling. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Working...