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

 



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:100 years ago, who cares? (Score 1) 487

I don't have any good predictions for the year 2047 on that subject.

Really? Why not? Because you claim today, with absolute certainty, that the Armenian genocide is non-relevant information (because of age). If that is a valid argument then it must be universally applicable. When you argue "if event X if older than Y years then it is non-relevant information" you cannot cherry pick values for X for which the argument should be true and "uncertain" for others. There are no reasons why that argument should not be applicable for the Nazi's killing of jews, Stalin's killing of Gulag prisoners, or other historic events if it is a valid argument.

It is not a valid argument, which is why I pick on it to expose it as such. Deep in your heart you know this as well I assume. I find it sadly disturbing that instead of admitting this you choose to try to deflect and thereby not agreeing on that calling the Nazi killing of jews during WW2 non-relevant information (when discussing history) will never be acceptable.

The (implicit) argument "nothing can be predicted about the future" is not valid either. Of course many things are difficult or impossible to predict about the future, but not everything. Example: I claim today that a man that never admits mistakes is a dishonest man, and I will most certainly continue to do so in 2047 as well.

I do not understand why you engage the way you do. Could you help me understand by trying to explain what you lay down as problem and cause for your action?

What is the problem?
...
What is the cause?
...
What is the solution?
Emotionally engage in advocating that the Armenian genocide can be ignored.

Comment Re:100 years ago, who cares? (Score 1) 487

No one called for "not talking about it".

Have you not called for not talking about the Armenian genocide several times?

But people who weren't alive and making decisions at the time are innocent of what happened. They should be free from dealing with it if they choose.

The first sentence is a truly valid argument. Although not very relevant. Because the question is not whether people living today are responsible for things that happened 100 years ago (of course they are not), but the question is how people are dealing with the history they have inherited from their ancestors. No one is free to ignore history.

Comment Re:This movie is a PR and failed miserably at it (Score 1) 487

Compared to the above two, Armenian massacre is small.

You are making up a false dilemma here. If is not either the two examples you gave or the Armenian massacre, is is both.

All wrongdoings by any country should be openly discussed, be it Japanese war crimes during WW2, human rights violations by the CIA, the Bosnian genocide, etc. Trying to downplay any such event as "not important" or "not as bad as something else" is being dishonest and respectless.

Comment Re:100 years ago, who cares? (Score 2) 487

So where is the big deal in saying...

Where's the big deal in not bothering to say it?

Leg me tell you what the big deal is by "not bothering to say". In the very best case, it will be a passive aggressive way of denying that it happened. Denying what happened is being dishonest. A man or a country that never admits mistakes is a dishonest man or country. Why do you not care about honesty?

Comment Re:EU Governments need to ban Windows 10. (Score 1) 161

Your extraordinary claims needs extraordinary proof. Because that contradict what research show; the correlation between crime and immigration is a society net positive (of course anything involving humans is never a 100% anything, so there will always be exceptions, e.g. some persons result in a society net negative, but the overall effect is positive).

From the abstract of the paper Urban crime rates and the changing face of immigration: Evidence across four decades:

Research has shown little support for the enduring proposition that increases in immigration are associated with increases in crime. Although classical criminological and neoclassical economic theories would predict immigration to increase crime, most empirical research shows quite the opposite. We investigate the immigration-crime relationship among metropolitan areas over a 40 year period from 1970 to 2010. Our goal is to describe the ongoing and changing association between immigration and a broad range of violent and property crimes. Our results indicate that immigration is consistently linked to decreases in violent (e.g., murder) and property (e.g., burglary) crime throughout the time period.

Comment Re:Transparancy (Score 2) 85

But even if the algorithms are 100% open and transparent, that means nothing if the data feed into them is poor. If the bank uses an algorithm to determine if it want to lend money to you, how is the data about you collected? Who decided to classify you as a say medium risk person? What cirterias did he/she/they use for that? How thorogh were he/she/they in gathering decition material? What did he/she/they miss/ignore/misunderstood?

Unless there is full and complete transparency and accountability for data collection, the transparency for just the algorithms is without value.

Comment Re: Not use it? (Score 1) 141

I'm not an economist, but I would have thought a cashless society makes little difference to the level of government control. Cash is controlled by the government anyway -

But the economics is besides the point. If for instance the government of North Korea had the possibility to track all economic transactions between all the people in the country because they were digital, do you think that would lead to fewer or more arrests of political dissents? If the economy in North Korea was cashless, do you think that would lead to fewer or more cases of torture? Killings? Would it be possible for a group of political dissents to meet each other on a weekend if it were impossible to move anywhere without leaving traces like everyone buying bus/train tickets to the same place, etc?

And while it is easy to pick on North Korea as a worst in class example, something far away, it is worth considering what the effects might be in countries that like to consider themselves best in class with regards to democracy and freedom for its citizens. Imagine if you suddenly without your knowledge are placed on a no-fly list because you have bought a few things from a country that the government has deemed evil, terrorist, communist or some other fashionable witch hunt term. Or perhaps you just have bought something from somebody else that have traded with those countries. This is just what might already happen today. The important thing is to imagine the potential for abuse and then make sure that there always is a non-digital alternative available.

Slashdot Top Deals

"You need tender loving care once a week - so that I can slap you into shape." - Ellyn Mustard

Working...