Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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 Re:Quantum entanglement (Score 1) 169

Nope. You need a classical communication channel just the same. The quantum channel is only capable of communicating uncontrollable random garbage.

Quantum-encrypted communication is no more useful in space than on earth, in fact it gets more resource-intensive the longer the link distance. Because the entanglement state travels faster than light (somewhere between 10,000c and "instantaneously"), and the classical channel that actually carries information is at light speed, if you wanted a quantum-encrypted radio link in space, you'd have a store a loooong history of the stream of random noise from the entangled electron, so that when a bit arrives after travelling 40 light-years you can look up what your electron's spin state was 40 years ago to decrypt it.

Comment Re:Wow! (Score 1) 262

From what I understand their thesis is that cops are wrongfully shooting too many black people. The reason the movement has sprung up now probably has to do with increasing sousveillance by people with cell phones, capturing irrefutable video evidence of incidents that could've been denied or covered up in the past.

Comment Re:Wow! (Score 1) 262

Correction, I never said "0% chance of committing a crime." I just take exception to the argument of "illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the native population" because it's misleading. You're not doing anything to assuage the fears of your countrymen who don't want more crime in their area. When you have a neighborhood with low crime rate, higher crime rate illegal immigrants start coming in, and the natives say "we don't want these people here because crime," it's disingenuous to call their concerns false or irrational because the newcomers are not as criminal as inner-city Chicago. You have real people, victims of real crimes, from real criminals who shouldn't be in the country because the citizens passed laws to keep them out, and when they complain you call them names and try to justify your lack of concern by willfully misreading statistics.

You've gone back to your "average is incredibly dangerous" fallacy. If you live in a mostly-white suburban neighborhood, that's about average. That's about as safe as the level of crime risk illegal immigrants are bringing, on average. If you think inner-city Chicago is just below average, then where is "bad?" If you live in one of the safest places in the US, like maybe...a Florida retirement home? Then maybe you have something to lose. Most people don't. Certainly the people living in the more dangerous half don't. Maybe you should be less selfish with the safety.

But what else are you supposed to do if you're a Jew who wants to live with other Jews so you don't have to put up with gentile bullshit?

Form a private discriminatory neighborhood (like Orania in South Africa) or just call Israel an apartheid state once and for all.

In the long term, do you think multiculturalism will be stable? Americans for the past few decades have spent enormous resources (both economically and culturally) to try to integrate their society. Educational programs, television stereotype programming, student codes of conduct at universities, anti-discrimination rules in the HR departments in our workplaces, "hate speech" censorship on our social media platforms, etc, and yet polls show a great number of Americans (especially black Americans) think race relations are in the toilet. What hope is there that increasing the diversity of the US will make people get along better rather than worse?

It's certainly possible, some countries and regions have made it work, especially those that are highly diverse. I'm certainly more willing to give multiculturalism a try than to resort to what could generously be called nativism.

People's perceptions of race relations certainly don't match with reality measured by any objective metric. Objectively, race relations have been steadily improving throughout modern history.

Comment Re:Please, Elon, find us a cure for Leftism! (Score 2) 63

I am thinking of capitalists and not your strawman progressives.

They're not killing off customers because people who the economy doesn't need work from can't pay for goods. If the 1% are doing nearly all of the producing (through ownership of robotic factories) and consuming (because they're the only ones who have discretionary income), and the 99% is just surviving on welfare and fuming at the 1% for hoarding everything, what do you think is going to happen? The 1%ers who produce things for mass consumption like food, energy and housing will have to take a hit to their business, but I'm sure the 1%ers could work out a compensation scheme among themselves...or just pool those 99%er-dependent services into the hands of a few fall guys and take them out first.

Comment Re:Please, Elon, find us a cure for Leftism! (Score 2) 63

That's when it's killbot time. The natural end-state of unrestrained capitalism is the killbot-powered genocide of at least 99% of the human population. It will make communism's death toll look like a rounding error. I, for one, would like to avoid this.

Comment Re:Let's play a game called "balanced viewpoint" (Score 1) 256

We'll have to check back in a few months and see if the prices actually rise or not...but those price caps were put in place for a reason and I doubt much has changed in terms of ISP competition since they were, so I know where I'm placing my bets.

Comment Re:Wow! (Score 1) 262

Well I'm glad you've cleared up your position on legal immigration. So if I understand correctly now, your criteria for who should be allowed to enter the US are:

1. 0% chance of committing a crime or as close to it as possible.
2. Culturally almost identical to middle or upper-class white Americans

So it sounds to me that your requirements are so restrictive that you're practically a total anti-immigrationist. There are relatively few people around the world who would meet your requirements. The cultural test would be difficult to administer - either that or it would be a contentious quagmire of national profiling.

The bigger problem is that your requirements represent an unfair form of intranational cultural colonialism. You believe that only one of the cultures that currently makes up the country, and has for a very long time, should be allowed to expand through immigration. It's somewhat similar to, but even more unfair than, Israel's immigration laws that allow much easier paths to citizenship for people who are Jewish by faith and/or ethnicity.

I'll simply have to disagree with your position. Far too nativist for my taste.

Comment Re:Wow! (Score 1) 262

But if you're against anyone who carries greater than a 0% chance of committing a crime entering your country, you should be against legal immigration at least as much as illegal immigration.

Again you want to racially profile the odds of criminality. You seem to think that white people are vastly less likely to commit crimes than average, and therefore that the average is extremely dangerous by "white people standards." You're quite wrong there.

Comment Re:Wow! (Score 1) 262

No you don't. Your chances of being raped or murdered stay the same, and now you might also get robbed.

You're assuming that the rapists and murders can't murder or rape the robbers...either that or you're doing bad math again.

I don't know. All I'm saying is the "lower crime rates than the native population" line is bullshit. By your logic you maximize your safety by flooding your neighborhood with murderers slightly less murderous than the current murderers. This is a very poor choice that I do not think you would make. You seem perfectly fine flooding your poor countryman's neighborhood with slightly less murderous people, though. So long as you get cheap tomatoes and you don't have to live in the more murderous poor neighborhoods it's fine though, right?

In other words, you think only saints should be allowed in. Anyone else increases the chance of crime by your logic, which flies right in the face of math.

It probably doesn't help you make good decisions that you're using such extreme examples with small sample sizes. There's a wide range of possibilities between "saint" and "murderer." The average might be "was caught with a joint" or "holds loud parties."

Slashdot Top Deals

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer

Working...