Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Yes and Conservapedia is much less biased (Score 1) 221

They even have an article on Examples of Bias in Wikipedia to prove it. It's their 9th most viewed page. Because proof for Conservapedia whatever they pull out of their asses.

Their second most viewed page is THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA. See the full list. It's unusual that only one of their top ten is about homosexuality. In the past as many as seven of the top ten most viewed pages have been about it.

Comment I don't know where to begin (Score 2, Insightful) 545

Smarter people are better at justifying their own ignorance. Unless they have critical thinking skills they are better able to cherry pick and fit whatever information they find to support their views rather than derive their views from the big picture. I've met some very smart people who believe weird shit. I myself know that flying commercially is safe, but the monkey in brain is going we're all going to die! and mull over a million different ways a plane could crash.

Anyway, skimming the paper lends neither support for nor contradicts the evidence that humans have caused and are causing the climate to change. It only addresses the likely belief systems of people in their peer groups and how that information can be used to communicate effectively with those groups:

For the ordinary individual, the most consequential effect of his beliefs about climate change is likely to be on his relations with his peers. A hierarchical individualist who expresses anxiety about climate change might well be shunned by his co-workers at an oil refinery in Oklahoma City. A similar fate will probably befall the egalitarian communitarian English professor who reveals to colleagues in Boston that she thinks the scientific consensus on climate change is a hoax.

Comment Elizabeth Moon is a Science Fiction Writer (Score 1) 409

NOT a sci-fi writer.

Anyway, I listened to the piece. At the end she said it would work in fiction. They do discuss the downside of chipping everyone. I guess the question is, do the benefits outweigh the risks? There are benefits, but the dangers posed by chipping are far greater. There would be no anonymity for the most powerful and spies. The apparatus of power would want the 99% chipped, but not themselves, the 1%. We already live in a police state. If your name gets put on a no fly list, you are screwed. There is no appeal even when the government fucks up. The technology is getting so we don't need to be chipped.

If you know anything about Elizabeth and her politics she is anything but a totalitarian. But as usual slashdot distorts and commenters blather on what they know jack shit about.

Comment raining white hot shrapnel over a crowded city (Score 2) 395

Charlie Stross has some interesting things to say about this Olympics 2012: A Bruce Schneier Moment:

Lunacy on stilts. (Oh, and let me add, the residents don't get any choice over having missiles billeted on top of their homes.)

If one of those things is ever fired, either in anger or by accident, it'll shower white-hot supersonic shrapnel across the extremely crowded residential heart of a city.

Slashdot Top Deals

And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones

Working...