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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:This plan has holes (Score 1) 156

by reve_etrange (#49557839) Attached to: The Future Deconstruction of the K-12 Teacher

what's pushing this is the management class's absolute loathing of skilled individuals. they demand that every worker be a replacable component and they simply don't care that that means loss of productivity through loss of experience, skill, and talent.

Related point: management never tries to maximize profits, only the ratio of profits to management effort.

Comment: Re:thank God they didn't have computers.... (Score 1) 629

In Nazi Germany, people accepted totalitarian rule because of economic growth, low unemployment and resurgent nationalism. In China and USSR, there was growth, redistribution and nationalist fervor. Extraordinary police powers were viewed as costs worth accepting in light of the real progress that had occurred.

Comment: Re:thank God they didn't have computers.... (Score 1) 629

The idea of protecting everyone all of the time is often the "wedge" that is used to start the totalitarian states.

Can you name one where this was true? In Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and China, political control and ideological purity were the motivation and the wedge.

Comment: Re:thank God they didn't have computers.... (Score 1) 629

I have never heard of a requirement that bystanders interfere.

I accidentally conflated Good Samaritan laws with duty to rescue, and apparently misremembered New York as an example. Such laws do exist in several states however.

There are places where the Police are tasked with protecting everyone, they are technically called "Police States".

Police state is a term denoting government that exercises power arbitrarily through the police. There has never been such a state, which tasked its police with "protecting everyone."

Comment: Re:thank God they didn't have computers.... (Score 1) 629

See Good Samaritan law

What's funny about these is that many of them coexist with legal precedent establishing that the police have no duty to protect citizens. So in New York for example, cops have no requirement to interfere, but ordinary citizens can be guilty of a crime if they do not.

Comment: Re: Must example set of him (Score 1) 629

The UK's cities have video cameras on every street corner, Australia wants to heavily regulate 3D printers in case someone decides to make a plastic gun, China DOSes web sites it doesn't like, ISIS is slaughtering Christians and Jews wherever it finds them, and the USA is a laughing stock because of its morally defunct justice system.


Comment: Re:Keep digging you own hole (Score 2) 166

by reve_etrange (#49424795) Attached to: The Arrival of Man-Made Earthquakes

the scientists on the 'environmental' side

This is a generic false equivalence which contradicts the positions of the actual Oklahoman scientists who provided the majority of the material in TFA.

In fact, these scientists all support the Oklahoma oil industry and continued injection via disposal wells. They want 1) the government to recognize the scientific evidence on the matter, 2) firms and government to investigate which wells contact basement rock and 3) firms to move wells which do in fact contact basement rock.

'harvest' the 'scientific results'

No harvesting or picking of results is possible in this particular case, because while there are ~25 studies supporting induced seismicity in Oklahoma, there are zero studies with alternate conclusions.

Comment: Re:Keep digging you own hole (Score 1) 166

by reve_etrange (#49424757) Attached to: The Arrival of Man-Made Earthquakes

So why the focus on this particular cause?

We're discussing an article about it. The article is not about other forms of induced seismicity - although the events you mention are useful in demonstrating that the amount of water injected in Oklahoma is quite significant.

it's your political view coloring your analysis of the situation.

I read peer-reviewed research in order to understand phenomena like the one in question. You on other hand are devoted to a particular position on an empirical question regardless of published research. You've already lied about the USGS' position, and are now resorting to non sequitor as a cheap rhetorical trick, in a discussion thread already replete with astroturf.

When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision.