Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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:Plant Recognition (Score 1) 421

by manwargi (#48734395) Attached to: What Isn't There an App For?

If the disclaimers are present such an app could be a great start if the baby steps are taken first. With picture data the app can return a list of possible likely results, outputting a warning if some of the results involve harmful types. It might not be able to tell two very similar species apart, but it would be great for those who don't know anything at all.

Comment: Re:Us, not them (Score 1) 187

by manwargi (#48657601) Attached to: Argentine Court Rules Orangutan Is a "Non-Human Person"

There are in fact actual studies into the moral senses of animals. While they might not closely resemble human notions of morality, there is behavior in animals that roughly resembles it. For example, in a study in which two dogs were offered treats in exchange for pet tricks like handshakes or rolling over, they gave one dog a very juicy morsel of meat for a reward, and when the second dog was offered something dry and flavorless for doing the same trick, the dog turned its nose up at the reward. The lesson there is that dogs at least have a sense of fairness. I'm sure there's something to all those stories about pets alerting their owners to grave danger and things of the sort, and pet owners have some tales to tell as well.

While I'm not sure that's sufficient for going into this territory of "non-human persons", there is strong evidence animals are capable of emotions, compassion, and even morality.

Comment: Re:So if it were violence against white men (Score 1) 310

It ultimately seems like a lose-lose situation because the feminists are going to find an excuse to attack it whatever they do.

Hear hear. I noticed this a very long time ago. There are no winning moves and they like it that way. If there are no females they'll complain about the absence of females. If there are females and they're attractive, they're being objectified. If there are females and they're not playable or combatants, an awful video rant is made complaining that they're objects and property or something. Are there even official, coherent demands by the people who spend all their time griping about issues like this? Do they have an achievable goal post that isn't discriminatory and makes sense?

Even many years back GTA3 was given a hard time for it being possible to kill hookers after you got your health restored by them, and it was the same situation even then. If the player wanted to kill all the black guys on the street or all the women or all the males or whatever, that is their prerogative and a natural condition of having a diverse world and equal playing field-- it is every bit as possible that an NPC can kill you or you can kill them.

Comment: Re:One interesting fact no one pointed out yet (Score 1) 1128

by manwargi (#48465219) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

Officers generally shoot for the body first, and if the target isn't falling down quickly enough for their tastes they start going for the head. A bigger problem here is how quickly officers go for the lethal option. An even bigger problem than that is the environment in that town made the events that transpired a mess just waiting to happen.

Comment: Re:Race (Score 1) 1128

by manwargi (#48457845) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

It's all a matter of salience. Simple minded white skinned people see one black skinned person behaving poorly and assume they all behave poorly. Simple minded black skinned people get called out, criticized, or harmed in any way by white skinned people and assume racism. Throw in bad experiences getting robbed, assaulted, pulled over by the police, being treated in a condescending way, and these people grow polarized. When a fracturing issue like Trayvon or Michael Brown comes up, these people are going to see what they want to see, and the drama ensues.

It's also what we're seeing with the whole SJW vs MRA mess, really. People were hurt, people know someone who was hurt, people heard a story about someone who was really hurt, and now they're out to hurt back. So many people in these groups have either been swindled out of their belongings and child custody or they're been abused in one form or another or they've been unfairly judged.

And then the media will fan the flames because that draws the attention they seek.

Comment: Re:Has the trend away from blunt force led to this (Score 1) 1128

by manwargi (#48457563) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

You're quite correct, the use of flashlights impact weapons had become more and more frowned upon, likely due to an combination of abusive officers and pain compliance techniques making people (the ones watching I mean, but certainly the ones on the receiving end too) feel bad. Unfortunately in moving away from that option, an officer that has to choose between throwing his back out wrestling with someone and reaching for that gun is going to be doing a lot more killing. Plus the thing that just makes this all the worse are the current generation of police that want to play soldier with their counter-terrorism toys.

Some people have a great ambition: to build something that will last, at least until they've finished building it.