Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Not made that experience (Score 1) 339

This may be true in regard to the U. S. presidental election, but at least in my country (germany) pretty much every vote from the last years was some kind of humility/cosmopolitarism contest. Not quite south east asian level but jovialism and/or arrogance have become pretty much a death flag.

Comment Now for the interpretation (Score 1) 152

Now all we have to do is to interpret this discovery. I think there are two socially sensible options you can choose from:

1) Manners are a form of insanity. If you don't like people smacking during lunch it's your own fault.

2) Manners are a form of insanity. If you smack while eating you are hurting mentally ill people and should be ashamed of yourself.

Happy voting!

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 1) 798

Because Manning is not a poor little patient in a remote asylum where he can be shielded from reality and reality can shielded from him. He is a highly public figure, a symbol for a lot of people who are dissatisfied with their self-image and therefore want to force their vision of themselves on the world. If we continue to repeat their vision for them, although we have good reasons to believe that they don't reflect reality, just out of a misplaced politeness, then this vision becomes reality while our own, objective reality becomes outlawed.

I wouldn't even mind calling Manning a "she" in a personal conversation if I didn't have the feeling I was only doing it out of fear for getting zerged by angry activists.

Comment Impossible (Score 1) 609

Even the most logical society still needs some axioms this logic can build upon. And these axioms are usually values which themselves stem from instincts and emotions. This is why two seemingly rational people can discuss for hours and hours and still end coming to different conclusions because deep in their mind they both want different things.

Brave New World solved this contradiction by assuming that most peoples interests are pretty basic (eat, sleep, drink, fuck) and can be satisfied by industrial progress while any other desires (like the need for a deeper meaning of one's existance) can be suppressed/satisfied with Soma. I don't remember if the novel gives an answer to the question why those who have those "unwanted desires" would not find that treatment degrading.

Comment Because (Score 1) 359

Because Star Trek has a strong idealist humanistic message which means that every lifeform, even those with the most alien shape and morality, deep in their heart want peace and prosperity and can therefore be reasoned with.

This is why pretty much every conflict in Star Trek is really just a fantastic diplomatic dispute.

Star Wars on the other hand is full of irredeemly evil and powerful people (Palpatine, Jabba etc.) who are mostly motivated by their desire for power and who can only stopped by force.

Funny enough, the TNG movies are not much different from Star Wars movies with less diplomacy and more action.

Slashdot Top Deals

The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.