Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: FFS (Score 1) 456

Of course, he's in a way right as evolution is a game of numbers. If he's busy producing as many offspring as possible while I life my life childless and without a care in the world, he'll win evolution but I'll settle for winning life. He's thinks everyone else is working for his offspring, but that's not how it works. He's working for the future of mankind (his idea of it anyway) but I'm working for nobody but myself. He talks of young to take care of the old, but I'll be paying his young to take care of my old. He's working for me, not the other way around and he doesn't even realize it.

Your frank honesty is refreshing. I've always realized this though, and that is why I call you thieves and want you to be marginalized. For the sake of my species.

Comment Re: FFS (Score 0) 456

Homosexuals reject procreation? I'm pretty sure they're not all VHE supporters, none of those I know are. Many not only support the concept of procreation, but want to adopt children.

There's far from a shortage of children in the world, never mind the means to have more.

Do you have any problems with infertile heterosexual people, just out of curiosity? I assume you wouldn't like those who could procreate and choose not to. My cousin and his wife decided they never want to have kids - not their own or adopted.

I think they're the scum of the earth.

Comment Re: FFS (Score 2, Insightful) 456

How is disagreeing with someone a sign of fear (phobia)?

Disagreement is taking an opposing intellectual position. Homophobia, like other forms of bigotry, is not an intellectual position.

It is not necessarily a fear -- it is often misleading to attempt to figure out the meaning of a word by looking at its to etymology.

Homosexuals reject procreation. That's not an intellectual position to take. People have both a civic and moral duty to procreate. A culture based around sustaining enough population to maintain itself through immigration is a) parasitic, b) evil and c) fundamentally self destructive.

The social contract where you get to relax and let the young people take care of things when you're old and tired relies on everyone paying into the system. Not with money. With babies. Nothing else will do, there's nothing else you can create that will fill the gap left behind if you don't make those babies.

If you don't pay in, but you take out, you're a thief. It really doesn't matter if you like babies or not, or if you like members of the opposite sex or not. People don't like going to work, but they do it because it's necessary for it to be done.

People like to act as though this was an issue of prejudice, but it isn't.

Believing that gay people are weak and unfit to do hard work is prejudicial, and thus, irrational. Some gay people are very strong, and you won't know until you investigate.

Believing that gay people don't hold up their part of the social contract that makes it possible for us to survive when we grow old, however, is NOT prejudicial. When they tell you they're gay, you don't need to investigate further. You know they're not doing it.

Opposing the normalization of homosexuality is a rational act.

Promoting it to young people in an effort to sway them to embrace it has the same effect as attempting to persuade them to take drugs that will sterilize them. It's an attempt to do them harm.

You know what else is irrational?

Idealism carried too far.

Comment Re:I'm shocked (Score 2) 289

I was in Beavers for 3 years. I was in Cubs for 3 years, and I was a leader of Beavers in addition to being a Cub, and I was a Scout for 2 years and a leader of Cubs during that time.

I'm the eldest son from a navy family, and my father was gone more often than not. It's hard to learn to be a man when you don't have a role model, and the scouting movement gave me one. Not because I fell into it by accident, but because he took steps to mitigate the loss his absence brought. I'm very glad that he did. My experience has a great similarity to that of young men I see from broken homes being raised by single mothers, and when I look on them, I can see the negative consequences that he protected me from, and I'm grateful.

Boys and young men need masculine culture. It's important. The Scouting movement do the best they can to meet the need in a positive way, and they do a pretty good job. If you're not offering something better, you have no right to piss on them.

Comment Re:Pointless (Score 2) 287

Wouldn't having a fun to drive car that you don't drive be a little bit pointless?

If I could drive it downtown manually and park it, go drinking and dancing till 4 in the morning, then crawl into the back seat with my new lady friend and have it take us back to my place, that would be the best car ever.

Comment Re:Fails at a fundamental level. (Score 1) 4

It would be impossible for ANY individual to oppress ANYONE using such a system, except inasmuch as they can choose not to use it.

I derive my inspiration from a parable in which a dying man has two sons, and has to choose which to give his sword to and which to give his plough to. He has no power to control what his sons do after he dies, but he knows that whichever son he gives the sword will use it to make himself strong, and thus become a warrior, and the other son will use the plough to make himself strong, and thus become a farmer.

The sons have the power to refuse the gift, and they can use the gift any way they choose after they receive it. Nevertheless, if they do actually accept it, the fathers gift will influence the lives of his sons in far reaching ways.

This is how I choose to influence others. With carefully chosen gifts. It is utterly impossible to oppress anyone in this fashion.

Moron.

Comment Re:Realistically... (Score 1) 628

There will likely never be a situation where the non-driving texter can be held responsible. Burden of proof will always be on the plaintiff, and proving that the non-driver knew that the driver would read his or her texts while driving will almost always be a legal impossibility. And, in that case, this makes about as much sense as holding a passenger in the car liable if they were being purposefully distracting or disruptive (IMO: perfectly valid).

I think it's a stupid law, but that's just not true. There have been lots of times I got a text message while driving, replied "sry drvn" at a red light, and then got several more messages in the next 60 seconds from the same person. I don't think I've EVER had someone text me while I was behind the wheel and NOT replied with that string, honestly... perhaps a few times when I was having a dialog trying to figure out where someone was, but in that case, the fact that I'm driving is obvious to the other party.

The responsibility is mine, of course, because there's nothing compelling me to actually look at the phone every time it beeps. But finding proof that the person on the other end knew I was driving would be trivially easy.

Comment Re:As usual. (Score 1) 622

Americans are renounced for not knowing their geography, but thinking that Indonesia is within US borders is still astonishing.

I think the word you are looking for is renowned.

And Americans are not the only ones who lack an understanding of geography.

I think the word he was looking for was denounced.

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...

Slashdot Top Deals

We can defeat gravity. The problem is the paperwork involved.

Working...