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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:Unconvincing about qualitative differences (Score 1) 120

One of the drawbacks of a lot of modern sci-fi is a failure to understand the nuances of actual, real, human history. Historians have a hard time grasping what life was like in a lot of humanity's past, but it's safe to say we have a decent grip on SOME aspects of history.

It's true that technology is changing things rapidly. But if you were a peasant in Eastern Europe in the 1300's, the recurved bows of the Mongols, which you had never seen before, would be a huge shock, and your life would have been turned upside down in an instant as the Mongol hordes came in out of nowhere and slaughtered your best men and set your villages on fire with technology you had not seen before..

The arrival of the Spaniards with guns on horses, with Pizarro in the 1500's, was a shock to the Incas, so much so that he was able to conquer their empire. They had never seen that "technology" before."

In fact, one could easily argue that while current technological advances are rapid, they are not *game-changing* in the same way that guns and nukes were.

Here are some possible game-changing technologies. Wake me when we have:
1) Serious, practical, invisibility cloaks.
2) FTL drives
3) Teleportation
4) Serious advances in genetic manipulation, such that people can taiolor their offspring to be geniuses or pyshopaths.
5) Very long life-spans, as in, beyond 150 years, healthy.

When THESE things start to raise their heads, then the world will really have changed in the same drastic way as the world for the Incas did when Pizarro showed up.

Comment Re:He doesn't deserve a place in this discussion (Score 5, Insightful) 204

I never understood comments like yours.

Just because someone is not willing to stand trial or "accept the consequences" for their actions doesn't invalidate their initial actions.

Civil disobedience doesn't somehow become morally wrong because you don't want to go to trial, "face the music", or allow yourself to be arrested. The idea is that by breaking some laws, you call attention to the injustice of those laws. Getting arrested may or may not help with that, but it has nothing to do with whether or not the law was wrong in the first place.

If Rosa Parks had decided not to allow herself to be arrested and fought back physically against the cops who arrested her, she likely would have been violently arrested, even beaten, but that would not have invalidated her initial refusal to move from her seat.

Edward Snowden's disseminating of the information he took from the NSA is valuable information everyone needs to know about how our government spies on its own citizens. His running from the law has nothing whatsoever to do with that; that information is valuable to all Americans whether or not he broke the law, so why do we care if he "faces the music"?

Comment Re:Making food taste good (Score 1) 330

Nowadays the two terms are conflated because grill is not generally used as a noun in this way.

When people say "Come over to my house; I am having a July 4 BBQ", they mean they are going to grill food on July 4, not actually BBQ food. But no one actually says "Come over to my house; I am going to have a July 4 Grill" because that implies you will have an actual grill object to give or something. It's confusing. So people say BBQ. There's nothing wrong with using English in this way.

Comment Re:Slashdot? (Score 1) 822

You. When was the last time a cop went into a theater and shot up innocent civilians in the dozens?

When was the last time a cop or a government representative went into a school and shot up classrooms full of children in the US?

I know it's cool to hate cops these days, but pay attention:

If you are more afraid of the government doing these things than citizens who own guns, YOU have not been paying attention. Pay attention.

Comment Re:Slashdot? (Score 1, Interesting) 822

Paying attention to the fact that the government rarely uses it's firearms compared to the number of citizens who use them. There were 30,000 gun deaths last year and 90,000 injuries. Most of those (although some are) are not from the government shooting a gun.

ergo, you have more to fear from a citizen with a gun than a cop..

Who is why us liberals make fun of the libertarian and conservative fear of the government.

Comment Re:Laws (Score 0, Flamebait) 822

Funny how reasonable people can come to a different conclusion about that. The 2nd Amendment seems to say that the right shouldn't be infringed since we need a militia.

Since we no longer need a militia, because we have a standing army, we can infringe it.

More importantly, screw the 2nd Amendment. It was written during a completely different time and the Founding Fathers were not infallible. It should be rewritten to more clearly say "Individuals should not have the right to own a gun."

Comment Re:Guns are the problem. (Score 3, Insightful) 822

Because you can run from a knife. This stupid strawman is always brought out when people talk about guns.

We don't have a knife problem. What self-respecting thug would use a knife when he can use an easily obtained gun?

We don't have a baseball bad slaying problem. Nor a crossbow problem.

We have a gun problem. Less guns means less gun violence.

Comment Re:We need to be harder on them (Score 0) 822

I'll bite. Give up your gun. You don't need it. Last year there were 100 burglaries with homicides involved; there were 18,000 suicides and 90,000 gun injuries. You are much more likely to shoot yourself or someone accidentally than you are to actually need to use your gun. Give up your gun.

Less guns means less gun violence.

Honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty. -- Plato