Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:GoDaddy (Score 1) 353

No, but I can tell you emphatically that they didn't kill for sport. That is a purely human invention.

Nonsense. Cats love to kill things, and it's not always to eat them either. They do it out of sheer joy.

Comment Re:Drug Cartels (Score 1) 548

...I would like to reiterate that my argument against heroin is less about the effects on the user than about the effect the user has on society-at-large when they run out of money to support their habit. Robbing, killing, and other violent and antisocial tendencies work against this particular drug's fight for legality.

It's hard to be very violent when your drug of choice is something that makes you feel very mellow and then go to sleep. But even the violence you're imagining this causing is a piddly little nothing when compared to the violence caused by the War on Drugs.

Comment Re:Drug Cartels (Score 1) 548

Actually, the problem with Heroin (as I understand it) is that it's insanely addictive and eventually kills its users due to an overdose caused by its massive tolerance curve. It also has severe withdrawal symptoms, which can include death.

The symptoms of heroin withdrawal are analogous to that of a bad flu. So if you (like most people) can survive a bad flu, you can survive that. Pain is temporary.

Alcohol withdrawal, however, can be much much worse. And it is legal.

I'm not saying heroin is harmless*, but it's nowhere as bad as you make it out to be. Many people in the past have used heroin on a usual basis without it killing them. Nat King Cole springs to mind.

* I wouldn't suggest its use to anyone. In an interview John Lydon described it is as the one drug that nullifies all creativity.

Comment Re:Idiot (Score 1) 745

I don't know if it's that similar. Watching some porn can be fun, and there's no real downside to it. From what I've heard from people with a lot of kids it's great way to experience stress and misery. Hell, you can have two if you like and you'd just be replacing you and your mate.

People make no goddamn sense.

Comment Re:Idiot (Score 1) 745

I did not suggest anything that will have to be enforced. It is not my belief that population control should be enforced. It is your assumption that it is. We as human beings have a highly evolved intellect, foresight, ability to plan, etc. We just have to use it. Just because in lots of cases in nature things tend to use resources until they suffer and die doesn't mean that has to be our path as well. (Though I"m sure with some research we can find many cases in nature where that doesn't happen).

Gosh but you're obsessed with suicide and violence.

Comment Re:Idiot (Score 1) 745

Do you know why that is? It's because it's energy. We need energy to do stuff and if we don't have energy, we die. We die from hunger, from dirty water, from lack of sanitation, from cold, whatever. We MUST modify our environment and that's how we will survive and we MUST use the cheapest ways of producing energy that are available at any point in time so we can concentrate our attention on the pressing things that we DO with that energy, which probably lead to our continuous survival not only on this globe, that is now supporting 7billion people and will support probably 1000 times as many people in 1000 years, but also off this planet. There is nothing that we do that can be considered 'clean' by everybody, but we do what we must.

Why do you assume we need always have 7 billion plus people living simultaneously? Or much more? Or be as wasteful with our resources as we are own now?

It has always been puzzling to me why we as a society are so willing to put so much time and money into working ourselves to death for some undefined prize labeled "progress". But are also too short-sighted, blind, terrified, whatever, of taking just a few seconds to wonder, "Where really should we be headed? Is the current course worth it?"

Comment Re:Science vs Religion: Contradictions? (Score 4, Insightful) 1014

So, once again I will assert that it is provably impossible to empirically disprove the total (universal) existence of god, given that we cannot search the whole universe, and will again assert that the asking of the question is irrelevent, since it is unlikely that god gives a toss.

An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in the existence of any gods. It does not necessarily follow that he or she believes they can prove that no gods exist. The question remains as to why you make such a big deal out of god. Do you always make such a long-winded defense if someone tells you they do not believe in any other one of the infinite possible metaphysical claims out there?

Although an empirical disproof of the existence of god is impossible, that doesn't rule out discounting specific definitions of god a priori.

Comment Re:"Legally" Guilty (Score 1) 359

Failing to refuse an unlawful order is not itself a crime, but following an unlawful order is generally a crime of some sort.

OK, you and the parent poster have me seriously confused. If you fail to refuse an unlawful order, doesn't that mean you are by definition following an unlawful order? How can the same situation be both a crime and not a crime at the same time?

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with computers is that they do what you tell them, not what you want. -- D. Cohen

Working...