Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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 Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score 1) 609

if you're building a peaceful nuclear facility to provide electricity to a civilian population, you don't build the thing deep underground.

Unless you have a neighbour called Israel with no problems whatsoever in blowing the crap out said facility because it might be the eventual precursor to the hypothetic ability to create nuclear weapons that could be used to eventually destroy something.

Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency has found evidence that Iran is pursuing work on a bomb.

Uh, no. It didn't, actually.

unless you think the idea of a radical theocracy armed with nuclear-tipped ICBMs is a potential threat.

I think your confusing warheads with delivery vectors. Iran doesn't possess ICBMs. Even if they could get a bomb, they wouldn't be able to deliver it very far, most definitely not to the US. What about a radical raceocracy armed with nuclear weapons? Isn't that a threat as well?

Comment Re:There is one major drawback, though (Score 2) 181

But how does that not happen with a pure representative system? A lot of people seem to assume the only laws voted for in parliaments are laws that the majority of the population supports. I don't see that. I see quite the contrary: laws go to parliament first, and then the partisan groups start the public "education" campaign to mobilize the people to their positions. Hardly any law representatives come up with is proposed by the People, they come instead from interest groups and lobbies and more often than not they damage public interest. So, look at it as a lobbying system for the People.

Comment Re:That democracy doesn't work. (Score 1) 181

Excuse me but, I fail to see how that is any different of what exists today. There will still be a Constitution or equivalent, that laws - any law, has to respect. And in the particular Finnish case, as pointed already, proposals are voted for in the parliament. But the things that you mention can as easily happen with a representative system.
If you are right about people. remember representatives are people too, therefore as stupid and evil as any other, possibly more.
Anyway, I think you're wrong. I don't see how direct democracy works any worse than representative democracy.

Comment Re:Another reason (Score 1) 346

Wars today are usually either over oil, religion, race, or about freedom - inside of small, punk regimes with crazy men at the helm.

If by oil, religion, race, and freedom you mean natural resources, then yeah. If by small, punk regimes with crazy men at the helm, you mean non-nuclear countries, then yes too.
I guess the next logical step in your reasoning is "Bomb Iran", eh?

Comment Re:Is this article some kind of a joke? (Score 1) 268

and the NSA can not easily target a US national without a federal judge seeing solid information about what the individual is doing, and it has to be related to terrorism essentially

I guess what people are trying to say is that, although what you say probably applies in theory and even most times, these agencies have no problems in skipping that particular step involving the judge if they (or a particular someone in there with enough power) really, really want to know something about a US citizen. Cops do it frequently with wiretaps, so I'd assume big bureaucratic agencies that operate in secrecy have little difficulty in pulling that out. The lack of public interest and things like the PATRIOT act only help to that surely. I think most of times they don't really expect anyone to come looking anyway.

Comment Re:Is this article some kind of a joke? (Score 1) 268

Out of those 13 headlines in your post, 7 are about people that pleaded guilty. Somehow, I find that odd. 5 of them are about providing or attempting to provide, or conspiring to provide,material support to "terrorists" or terrorist orgs like al Shabaab (interestingly, Al Qaeda seems to be démodé these days, Al Shabaab is the new rage). Now my question is, the FBI seems quite successful in arresting people providing material support to terrorists but, where are the terrorists themselves?

Furthermore, Gitmo is a concentration camp. So your comparison actually makes sense. In fact, not only it is a concentration camp, it's one on foreign ground too, a fact which allows evading US laws. Is it one of the worst things ever? People are detained there without accusation or trial for years on end, so, yes.

Comment Re:How far do we go to fight terrorism? (Score 1) 189

I think you might want to say

For some of the rich, the poor are always terrorists threatening to use democracy to take away the psychopathic power of the said rich.

Being rich is pretty much a relative thing. I'm sure you're rich compared to somebody on this planet. That doesn't make you bad or a psychopath, but it does empower your evilness and psychopathy. But then so does having a public mandate or a large public willing to listen to you. But you most likely know this already.
It's unfair and simplistic to put the blame on the rich or the politicians only. People often claim for democracy and freedom, but the when they get it they proceed to elect the shadiest people to office. When under a dictatorship it's easy to find responsibilities: they're all concentrated on the dictator. In a democracy, the responsibility is on the elector, like it or not. So when we start criticising corrupt politicians, we should finish by criticising the corrupt people that vote for them.

Comment Re:It's not a choice (Score 1) 728

The only thing I believe in is science. But saying that religion corrupts minds does seem to me a vicious or vitriolic attack, as I doubt any causation or correlation between 'religious minds' and 'corrupt minds' has ever been established.

Sexual orientation can not be a meme as it exists in species that do not have the capacity for memes. It can not be a meme because it is observed to occur spontaneously in species where no prior behavior has occurred.

How do you know which species have the capacity for memes? What kind of memes? How can a meme occur in the first place if not spontaneously?

The idea that it is a genetic defect would require that non heterosexuality causes harm

No it wouldn't. It would only require that phenotypes displaying it are less favoured by natural selection than ones displaying heterosexuality. No one is passing moral judgement here.

You don't need to know precisely what causes it to be able to objectively demonstrate that certain causes are not valid.

True. But we're still lacking a scientific explanation for multiple sexual orientations. All I'm saying is that is seems more likely to me that it has memetic (or psychological or nurture), rather than a genetic (or nature origin). That doesn't mean people can at any point choose their sexual orientation just like they can't choose many of their personality traits. I am also suggesting that religious people might have trouble choosing not to be religious without external help. The main difference would be that, if I'm right, the meme for sexual orientation acts on much more primitive and deep way in our brain than the religious one, hence in a way rather unaccessible to our conscious experience. That would also mean the the meme could act on most large animals with which we share the most primitive part of the brain.

I couldn't care less what the sexual orientation of people is (unless I'm sexually interested in them). But I would definitely like to see a scientific explanation for the undeniable fact that multiple sexual orientations do exist.

Comment Re:It's not a choice (Score 1) 728

Sexuality is natural yes. That is pretty much a tautology. But who says sexual orientation is not a meme? A powerful and primitive one yes, but a meme still? It surely makes more sense to me than to think it's some sort of genetic feature, in which case homosexuality would be a defect that managed to elude hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection, or that is so common a mutation as to suddenly re-appear with so much frequency (if this is the case, then it should be quite easy to pinpoint genetically).

The fact that religion (or some sort of mystical worldview) has sprouted pretty much in every human culture independently suggests that there probably is some natural propensity to be religious. In fact, it takes education and training in critical thinking to effectively shut down the religious meme.

So, you could reasonably argue that both phenomena are not that different. That both are memes. And both have, like it or not, an influence and power that can profoundly affect the basic core of human society. And if sexual orientation is not a choice, the fact that a supernatural worldview might creep in your head might not be a choice either. So maybe you should be more careful with the vitriolic attacks on religion, as you might be discriminating people for something that they can't control (without some help at least).

But hey, I know these days it's so PC to defend the right to sexual orientation and it's so fashionable to attack religion... Not that I'm claiming you do it for these reasons. But I find it curious how we so suddenly jumped from homosexuality being a taboo sickness to being an unattackable right (while at the same time not being a choice). It seems to me no one is trying to understand it anymore, which, in turn, means it can suddenly become a taboo disease again, should the winds change direction again. But oh well, this is just me ranting...

My point is, we actually don't know where sexual orientation comes from (and apparently no one cares) and we also don't know where religion comes from (or why it's so hard to make it go away), therefore, viciously attacking one while piously defending the other (seems to me it) is probably a bad idea.

Comment Re:It could be if.... (Score 1) 200

I will take just one of the so called "facts" that you write about

Yes. I knew you would choose that one. Let us consider, however, how it all played out according to the article I posted:

Hayb was convicted of manslaughter and obstruction of justice by an Israeli military court in April 2005 and sentenced to eight years in prison.

From the Wikipedia article on manslaughter:

Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.
manslaughter (...) requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation.

Back to Hurndall:

The IDF initially refused more than a routine internal inquiry, which concluded that Hurndall was shot accidentally in the crossfire, and suggested that his group's members were essentially functioning as human shields. (...) Hurndall's parents demanded an investigation.

As pressure from the parents mounted, supported in part by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, in October 2003 Israel's Judge Advocate General Menachem Finkelstein ordered the IDF to open a further military police investigation into Hurndall's death.

Idier Wahid Taysir Hayb (or al-Heib), claimed, he had shot at a man in military fatigues although photographic evidence clearly showed Hurndall was wearing a bright orange jacket denoting he was a foreigner. Hayb was an award-winning marksman and his rifle had a telescopic sight. He claimed to have aimed four inches from Hurndall's head, "but he moved". Hayb said a policy of shooting at unarmed civilians existed at the time.

On 10 April 2006, a British inquest jury at St Pancras coroner's court in London found that Hurndall had been "unlawfully killed". (...) The lawyer representing the family, Michael Mansfield QC, stated:

Make no mistake about it, the Israeli defence force have today been found culpable by this jury of murder.

A week earlier, an inquest found that the British journalist James Miller had been killed by an Israeli soldier just three weeks after Mr. Hurndall was shot, a mile away from Hurndall's position.

So, while your compatriot was charged and convicted with manslaughter, what really happened was murder. Unless an award-winning marksman shot a head on top of a bright orange jacket near some children without intention to kill or unaware he was creating a deadly situation.
And yes, I I take time to carefully write most of my posts because that's how I think everybody should do. But I take extra care when replying to people like you, so that everybody here sees who the delusional person is.

Wanna choose another 'fact' I'm lying about?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like `Psychic Wins Lottery.'" -- Comedian Jay Leno