Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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:I signed up (Score 1) 465

by loneDreamer (#46896943) Attached to: Lessig Launches a Super PAC To End All Super PACs
I admire your courage and determination, seriously.

Sadly, the truth is that with lack of education and refined propaganda machinery it is not hard to buy vote with money. The problem with democracy is that it puts power in the hands of people, which have little chance to wield it in coordination. An informed vote is hard, almost impossible, since the complexity of society and politics is huge, the number of players huge and any individual's time to catch up and remember history very limited.

And that, without even going into the fact that there is an entire machinery to define the candidates before you get to use the vote you value so much.

So the odds are not in your favor, my friend. That said, I agree that stoping to exercise whatever power you yield, no matter how small, is to give up all power entirely. So keep voting, and, IMHO, vote for the bottom-feeders and shake the status-quo. Even a non-winning candidate that does well can gather publicity and influence that then has a chance to grow over time.

Comment: Re:After you win Monopoly, you play Risk. (Score 1) 1216

by loneDreamer (#45509955) Attached to: Should the US Copy Switzerland and Consider a 'Maximum Wage' Ratio?
Your vision is too narrow. You mention the dollar as something American will be able to move completely away from if they wanted. This is false. No matter what you call the circulating currency, at the end of the day the rich hold a vast proportion of practical wealth, even more unequal than income. I'm talking houses, land, transportation, farms, infrastructure, mining, etc. All enforced by police and army in established political and geographical boundaries.. Change your money into another denomination all you want, you are most definitely still playing the game. Want out? You can go trade with other people on deep international waters or in space...

Comment: Re:Logic! (Score 1) 776

and this chart shows how what was released from Chernobyl compares to all coal and nuclear emissions ever combined.

Just need to point out that it does not. Especially since it only includes things like the effect to a single person, for very narrow times/events. This chart, while amazing, is not comparing total levels of anything!

Comment: Re: Does It Matter If Companies Are Tracking Us ? (Score 4, Insightful) 166

by loneDreamer (#44595821) Attached to: The Next Frontier of Consumer Exploitation By Corporations
This also already happens. I'm right now paying the price of deciding to avoid credit and use my own money to live. Turns out the system really wants you to borrow, and through the beauty of credit scores, all manner of daily things become a hassle or downright impossible unless you play along. The tracking of info might appear harmless... till companies and people rely on it and require it. Then your choice is between sheeple or outcast.

Comment: Re:A great deal of mass is devoted to driver safet (Score 1) 369

by loneDreamer (#44067047) Attached to: How Ubiquitous Autonomous Cars Could Affect Society (Video)
Your problem is not too hard to solve, and the fact that a car is your current solution does not mean the only solution. You can replace a whole parking lot with a few lockers. Also, parking is another reason for using these cars as taxis. Not only you avoid it, but also the same car can go serve another customer. Mass adoption would mean a hugely reduced motor pool (and all those benefits).

Comment: Re:doesn't help people take games seriously either (Score 1) 737

by loneDreamer (#44018237) Attached to: Sexism Still a Problem At E3
In my case, knowing and understanding the pain my wife would feel if I betray her is what keeps me in check. I don't thing that falls into "political correctness". That said, I definitely enjoy seeing sensual, beautiful women, without the need to act on it. Sometimes I even comment on a girl I see on the street with my wife present. It is not "a way to cope" or "a release mechanism", it is just a free, casual and harmless passtime, same as I like ice cream for instance. IMHO, this whole sexism thing is often blown out of all proportion.

Comment: Re:Try to avoid 9 billion (Score 1) 293

by loneDreamer (#43996729) Attached to: <em>Pandora's Promise</em> and the Problem of "Solutionism"
Sure, but the US is not the place to look at for contraception efficiency. It is cheap by US standards and pretty much available, so I'm not surprised things stabilized. It plays a much higher role on Africa and Asia, were woman still have an average of 5.1 kids, which can be reduced to sustainable 2 yet.

Comment: Re:I don't know who is more useless... (Score 1) 293

by loneDreamer (#43992847) Attached to: <em>Pandora's Promise</em> and the Problem of "Solutionism"

I appreciate the optimism, but I find the idea of "we will be cause we need to" to be extremely naive. It ignores a history full of fallen civilizations and makes broad future predictions with no evidence whatsoever. Also, it seems to calm any worries without involving any particular push to action nor plan to follow. Mankind's epitaph could well be "they did what they needed to survive, till they failed".

On the other hand the idea of reducing population seem very sound. It involves practical plans with some evidence of good results (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Family-Planning), and I don't know anyone that actually proposes to kill people (yes, China used draconian measures but that does not mean other options are not possible). If we added BILLIONS of people over 50 years (say, from 3bn in 1960 to 7bn in 2012) thinking of reversing the trend in another 50 doesn't seem to me the aberration you seem to believe. Overall, it makes the statement that many of our current, social, economical and environmental problems seem to come from too many wanting to consume more, so reducing the number of people that needs to be supported helps diminish said problems. Also, reducing serious organizations (like the UN http://unfpa.org/swp/2009/en/ch6.shtml) and serious people to "these naysayers" hardly gets us to a better understanding.

With all due respect, I consider the fact that you were modded insightful kind of dangerous.

"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite." -- Bertrand Russell, _Sceptical_Essays_, 1928