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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem. (Score 1) 347

I know you're just being a douchebag, but in all seriousness, right now I'm trying to design an effective way for mesh networks to scale. My system presupposes their existence, and the tech isn't quite there yet. I believe that by making all the nodes aware of their location on the earth, and by making the nodes intelligent enough to discriminate between peers based on the broadcast power of the peer, I can solve the problem. But it takes time. The rest of the necessary technology has already been invented, this is the remaining key to the puzzle. Depolying it will be a whole different matter... ideally, something can be put together that can run on existing devices, so people can, if they wish, install the software and begin the process of administering their affairs using the new system.

If billions of people can be presented with the choice "From now on, we will ignore existing systems of authority and govern our affairs using this system. Anyone who attempts to use force to compel you to honour the rules of the old system is a violent criminal, and we will all co-operate to stop them. Do you agree?", and they say "Yes", and they KNOW that 9 out of 10 people they see on the street ALSO said yes, then the existing systems will fall. What will they do with their newfound power? I don't know. Evolve as a society? Kill themselves? Beats me. As long as vicious self-serving bastards are no longer able to wield them, I'll be content.

Comment Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem. (Score 1) 347

This ISN'T a stable society. It's a society that has been below replacement levels of reproduction for several generations. We're in the middle of a crisis of too many elderly and not enough young. You're living in a bubble untarnished by reality. If you search for key words such as "Demographic Winter" or "Ageing Population" there are plenty of numbers to substantiate the simple truth that we are REALLY FUCKED.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your ideals and preconceptions...

Comment Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem. (Score 0, Troll) 347

Our basic nature is to breed. We can follow that or grow up.

The fundamental duty of all living things is to recreate themselves. After you do, something changes inside you that causes you to realize that you're not the center of the universe. That's called "Growing Up".

If you haven't bred yet, you're still a child. You shouldn't be allowed to vote, any more than any other mewling babe.

That is the biggest BS I have read in a while. There are plenty of people that have bred multiple times and yet to grow up or actual act like adults or they let their kids run wild (being non-responsible towards their kids because they are selfish as parents.)

If you don't have kids of your own, then who the fuck are you to judge? If they let their kids run wild, their kids won't let you tame them, and they'll reproduce, and they'll carry on their family line, despite social pressure to abstain from reproducing and work. It's an effective defense mechanism against efforts to "civilize" them and use them.

User Journal

Journal Journal: A new democratic model 4

This is a work in progress, which I will continue to expand upon. I feel it is important to share it in it's unfinished, because I am frequently misunderstood when I attempt to communicate my ideas in conversation, and am attacked by people based on a false understanding of what I propose. This is intended to be a tool which I deliver as a gift to mankind, to use or ignore as they see fit, and not something I impose upon anyone.

The Principles:

Comment Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem. (Score -1, Flamebait) 347

Our basic nature is to breed. We can follow that or grow up.

The fundamental duty of all living things is to recreate themselves. After you do, something changes inside you that causes you to realize that you're not the center of the universe. That's called "Growing Up".

If you haven't bred yet, you're still a child. You shouldn't be allowed to vote, any more than any other mewling babe.

Comment Re:Their definition of "Moral" is the problem. (Score 1) 347

Where the crap did you dig up that definition of "moral?"

I went back to basics and made choices.

I am a person. Do I have value? Yes, I've decided that I do.

Does humanity have value? Yes, I've decided that it does.

So, the most fundamental basis of moral behavior has to be, "Does it cause us to destroy ourselves."

If behavior causes us to destroy ourselves, it is immoral. Full stop.

After that, I begin to consider the quality of the human experience. It is always better to exist than to not exist, but it is better to avoid suffering and afford humans dignity after the fundamental goal of survival is met.

For example, it is better if birth control makes it possible for people to have families that are more likely to survive and thrive, and afford women more dignity.

But, if every woman on Earth decided that they were going to just skip having children and focus on their careers, it would then become moral to rape them into pregnancy and force them to bear their children to term, and immoral to stand by and watch humanity become extinct because we don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done.

That's a ridiculously extreme example that will never actually come to pass, of course, but it illustrates the way in which behaviors become moral or immoral depending on the situation.

Comment Re:Female programmers (Score 0) 608

Do you not believe in Evolution

If you are going to twist it that way it turns out I don't...

Exactly. You're irrational, and you're not alone in it, and that's the reason our cultures are in decline. Because everyone wants to talk about creating a sustainable population for whatever cute animal they have an affection for, but no one wants to take responsibility for sustaining our human population. They want to live like the proverbial grasshopper, and leave it to the ants.

We don't need women sitting behind computers. Who gives a flying fuck if they're there or not, really? What we need is for women to push out babies so there's someone there to care for us when we're old, and they're not doing it. Men are still working hard doing the death trades like they always have... whereas women have let our entire civilization down.
 
But really, men shouldn't blame women. We should blame ourselves. Men are the the fist that makes Law work, and Law belongs to us. Women cannot take it from us, we have to be manipulated into giving it to them.

But carry on saying what is politically acceptable, you gutless cowards.

Comment Their definition of "Moral" is the problem. (Score -1, Troll) 347

The human cultures that are most exposed to modern scientific education are also those with birth rates below replacement levels. So, for whatever reason, scientific education is co-related with the decline of human civilization. If it leads to the decline of human cultures, it is not moral.

The reason that the researchers found scientific thought leads to moral behavior is because the researchers have a flawed definition of what is moral and what is not. Which is to be expected, because they're scientific researchers.

Comment Re:Female programmers (Score 2) 608

This is untrue, except in the basest biological sense.

Her ideas live on and will likely continue to live for much longer than the typical genetic line.

See also: Alan Turing. (Ah yes, now I see that you are trolling)

I'm not trolling at all. Do you not believe in Evolution? Both her and Turing were losers in the game of life.

Their words and everything they did will fade from significance, just like the words of every human being who was around 10,000 years ago have done.

Their short term significance is that they were exploited effectively by those who won this round of the game of life, and their offspring.

But, you know... don't let me dissuade you from sacrificing yourself to the education system. If you want to serve my children instead of serving your own, go for it. If you're going to be stupid, short sighted and materialistic, you may as well be taught to wear a saddle like the other useful animals.

Comment Re:Only relevant line (Score 4, Insightful) 629

"Google claims that one problem with our new app is that it doesnâ(TM)t always serve ads based on conditions imposed by content creators."

Nothing more needed to be said. The rest of the article is manipulation.

And Microsoft claims the API doesn't let them do that, which is possible. Perhaps Google doesn't expose the necessary APIs. Or perhaps to get the ad, you call "GetAd" with the video ID, and expect Google to Do The Right Thing(tm) and return an appropriate ad (which makes sense - do you expect the client to retrieve the ad, do some analysis and if it doesn't work, get another ad? Geez, look at the bandwidth waste!). Of course, perhaps Microsoft isn't dumb and they looked at how Google wrote their YouTube apps on iOS and Android, and saw they were calling some unknown API to fix it.

Of course, "Google Can Do No Evil" attitude is quite prevalent, and I suppose like Apple fanboys, they refuse to see any bad things their company does. It's easy to hate Microsoft. It's easy to hate Apple. But hate Google and the fanboys can be just as vicious as Apple ones.

No. Microsoft doesn't claim the API doesn't let them do that. They are very careful in their wording. "Our app serves Google’s advertisements using all the metadata available to us." and " We’ve asked Google to provide whatever information iPhone and Android get so that we can mirror the way ads are served on these platforms more precisely. So far at least, Google has refused to give this information to us." do not add up to "The API doesn't let us do that"

Google are the new Doubleclick, and claiming they do no evil is ridiculous, but so is your post.

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with opportunity is that it always comes disguised as hard work. -- Herbert V. Prochnow

Working...