Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:social experiments (Score 1) 291

I don't think it presumes a lack of free will. I think it presumes that a very small percentage of young people, in certain situations and with certain preconditioning, will tend toward activities that result in pregnancy. People can control themselves. Those young women that became pregnant, they controlled themselves in such a way that they became pregnant. Was that decision made easier by the stimulus they experienced? Well, it looks like in about 2-4% of them, the answer is yes.

One thing you need to remember is that you, and I, and everyone alive on this planet for that matter, comes from ancestors who all did one thing right, without fail, 100% of the time, each and every generation, going all the way back to the very first humans ever on this planet. That singular thing that every single one of your ancestors have in common? They procreated successfully and created offspring that procreated successfully.

Think about that for a moment and let's compare. What if every ancestor of a certain person from the beginning of human history was a murderer. How surprised would you be when that person committed a murder? Murder is, admittedly, a more complex behavior than sex so it is easy to argue that sex would be even more likely.

Also, it's not like there aren't tons of papers, experiments, and conjecture on the psycho-sexual motivations of humans. I have read that just about every human behavior has been related to or attributed to sexual drives by psychologist, psychiatrists, philosophers, and pundits. Everything from the drive to work and earn money and upwardly mobile social movement to speech patterns, vocabulary choice, and clothing. So it's not about whether or not people have free will, its about how people choose to use that free will, and how the world occurs to them when they make choices. Its about how people choose to have sex, when they will choose to have sex, and even why they choose to have sex.

I also seemed to notice a slippery slope in your writing that was coupled with a pejorative view of sex. If that is the case I fear we may have difficulty discussing this subject without knowing each other better. When discussing topics like sex there can be heavy filters and unspoken assumptions that lead to misunderstandings between people that are not aware of each others presuppositions. My goal in replying is not to say you are wrong, not is it to argue, but merely to say that any discussion of free will and sex needs to include the possibility that people will choose freely to have sex, and that those free choices are influenced by antecedents, stimuli, and experiences. It is true that acknowledging that people can control themselves is a good first step toward controlling that behavior. It is also just as important to realize what you are dealing with when considering human sexual activity. To deny that there are incredibly powerful underlying components to the human makeup that can be manipulated to increase the likelihood of procreation is shortsighted and leads to useless therapies like teaching abstinence, non-communication on sexual matters between children and parents, and ultimately sending children out into the world drastically under prepared and unsupported.

As humans we are, at our basest nature, violent sexual beings that don't always make choices that fit with the predominant behavior patterns we display to the world on a daily basis. Forgetting this leads to all sorts of problems. Like assuming that people will, with he proper training and teaching, decide to not rape an unconscious woman when she presents herself as such. I would love to live in a world where everyone could be taught proper self control and willpower, and would use those skills without fail. However, this is not the world we live in, and this is not who humans are. Drop a fully sedated and unconscious supermodel in front of 10000 young intoxicated men and regardless of how well you train them, some of them will rape her. Its not surprising, really. Remember those ancestors that I mentioned earlier, the ones that have been batting 1000 on the procreation front? Many of them were rapists, too.

Comment Re:social experiments (Score 4, Insightful) 291

Sounds plausible doesn't it? Show the young lady exactly what it is like to have a child, but without them having one. That should scare them into not wanting children, right?

However, when I read about this I thought "Aren't they risking priming and further activating all of the reproductive programming that women (and men) are subject to at that age?" I mean really, haven't we noticed yet that reproduction is a dirty trick that our biology plays on us? The drive to procreate is definitely not rational, in light of population pressure, economic well being, and lost opportunities swallowed up in the time it takes to raise young. But in spite of this it persists at a rate that is greater than necessary to sustain the species. What does that tell you? It tells me that reproductive motivations have root access to the wetware OS and are using that access to control the system subtly and pervasively.

Personally, I am surprised it isn't more effective at driving up pregnancy rates than it is.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 671

So what you are saying is that I was correct initially when I stated I always thought it was going to be right-wing reactionaries, but somehow when I misinterpreted his statement and expanded my viewpoint to include both right and left wing reactionaries and generally anyone who places ideology above the sanctity of human life, all of a sudden I don't get it...

See you said: "It's going to be the right-wingers who kill you for threatening the environment."

I said: "Always envisioned right-wing reactionary militants as the catalyzing agent for population reduction wars."

See, pretty similar. Also notice that I don't discount that idea, only add to it the possibility of another source of social breakdown. Yet somehow you declare I don't get it. Whatevs, man.

Personally, with all the "denier" talk, its the politically active environmentalists with language constriction as part of their policies that I really worry about. They sound like religious people, and we all know how dangerous and destabilizing they are.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 671

Populace means the people living in an area. You added the connotation of "the rich" and erroneously so. Unless you define "wealth enough to own a firearm" as "the rich."

I saw his statement as the government/army, not the electorate. Your interpretation makes more sense as I read it, though it is hard to push that through the stereotype filter of typical parlance on this site. I mean really, did he just say "when all the hillbillies in flyover states start caring about the environment..."? Seems implausible to me.

As for an armed populace, I would prefer that all men are armed. The tyranny of government is the enemy. That criminals fear those they would prey on is also desirable. That an armed society is a polite society is a pleasant side effect.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 671

Not to be a smart ass, but a "population reduction war" is, by virtue of the words placed in that order, a war fought to reduce population. It is, I posit, a logical conjecture about a hypothetical future war. It's not too difficult to foresee something like this. Combine the prime problem of exponentially growing population pressure with the exacerbating factors of dwindling resources, kin selection, religious friction, ideological conflicts between neighbors, and energy-dense technology proliferation and you have the perfect ingredients for a return to our species roots as genocidal monsters.

A war fought for territory, or for honor, religion, or for ideology would be completely different than a "population reduction war." A "population reduction war" would be a war fought specifically to reduce the population on the Earth. Whether this ultimate goal is know or hidden from the participants is irrelevant. In a population reduction war killing the enemy's armed forces is not done to force compliance, depose the government leaders, or to gain territory. Killing the enemy would not be a means to an end in a war like this. Killing the enemy is the end. And, as such, the means would be different than in other wars. Combatants would not be the main targets, they would be tactical obstacles between you and the strategic goals of large populations of civilians.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 671

Well then that's all we need! We have provided our decedents with more knowledge in this generation than all of our cumulative generations previous to this one. Conserving any resources is irrelevant!

Thanks for proving my point, again lol!

Seriously though, Leary and Wilson call inherited knowledge you are referring to the "time-binding semantic circuit" of human consciousness. It is an inalienable trait of being a human. Making a societal decision for conservation of resources for future generations is totally different than the automatic accumulation of human knowledge as a by product of language using monkeys playing with tools. It is even father afield from the results of reproductive pressures expressed in future generations that you refer to.

There really is no way to compare them. Its like comparing geology and satellites. Their Venn diagrams aren't even on the same plane.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 671

Goes well with the old adage, "necessity is the mother of invention." Force our future generations into devising increasingly ingenious ways of staying ahead of the extinction curve. No one handed our distant Paleolithic ancestors a leg up, same goes for every generation since. This attitude served us well up to this point, in that we aren't dead yet..

Also goes along well with the "intelligence implies belligerence" adage, though as a cause of the intelligence. A harsher environment will lead to greater intelligence, which will, in turn, reinforce the behavior of molding our environment to our wishes. (Intentional digression) at a certain point I think that deliberate adaptation of our environment will reach a place of diminishing returns. Somewhere along that asymptotic curve it will become more cost and energy effective to deliberately modify the human element of the survival equation.

Not supporting his position per se. Just exploring the taste of that mind filter out loud here. What would I use as rationalization and ancillary support if I were to adopt that thought as valid. As always, even the most ludicrous shit can be justified through human "reasoning" and "logic."

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 671

Another argument is that sooner or later the men with guns are going to realize that the environment has to be protected. And then they will find that you muck up the numbers, and will have to be removed from the equation in order to make them come out correctly. Buh-bye!

Yikes! That's a wake up call right there. Always envisioned right-wing reactionary militants as the catalyzing agent for population reduction wars. Just goes to show that any authoritarian agents with power-centric ideologies they value above the sanctity of human life are dangerous as fuck.

And yet another reason for an armed populace.

Comment Re:What event? (Score 1) 525

The worst confidential info "scandal" was when she gave the order to send talking points for the day...

So, you either don't actually know what SAP material is (in which case you're being willfully ignorant on this topic and should stop expressing opinions until you read up on it), or you DO know, and you're just being another liar in the service of a liar.

Comment Re:How hard is it to find emails? (Score 1) 525

Yeah, because the FBI knows nothing about gathering information, amirite?

The FBI can only gather what's given to them, or what can be forensically recovered. If she blew away 30,000 emails, and they've got under 20,000 of them to look at, there's some they couldn't get. It's not really very complicated.

Comment Re:What event? (Score 2) 525

seriously. What event? Aside from the scandal itself what, exactly, did Hilary do that was a) a criminal offense and b) revealed in the emails?

The emails revealed that she was incredibly reckless in handling classified information - some of it SAP-level stuff so sensitive that it can't even be talked about when it's 100% redacted, content-wise. People lose their careers and their liberty over such carelessness. And we're now seeing evidence of pervasive corruption as her family was enriched while their family business sold access to her while she was in office. So, you're either simply not paying attention or (more likely) you know all of this and are a Shillary.

While I'm on it, which is it? Is she a fool who couldn't run an email server or a Machiavellian genius who successfully evaded the FBI and an entire political party's attempts to bring her to justice?

False dichotomy.

She's had a long career of throwing underlings under the bus or having her party cover for Clinton Machine mis-steps. So yes, incompetence (but mostly arrogance). And no, she hasn't evaded the FBI or congress ... she's still hip deep in the mess she created.

Comment Re:Criminal (Score 3, Insightful) 525

This. Soooo much this. And, if you squint hard enough most of the pejorative monikers for one candidate can be interchanged with at least one or two others.

Makes me want a shorter election cycle for president with a corresponding shorter term. Flush the system quicker, limit the damage, burn through the current chaff and get some damn wheat. Only problem is the people we elect to the "feeder" offices (like governor, etc) are just as tainted and tarnished as the crop of whackjobs we fielded this time. And if Trump is indicative in the slightest of our private sector offerings for the position of POTUS our American experiment is well and truly over.

The worst part is that there are so many die-hard fans of these imbeciles. Watching large swaths of the electorate fawn over these incredibly flawed humans has somehow further degraded my already rock bottom apprehension of the American public. It seems the worse the candidate the more the people voting for them have to overcompensate with fervor and gusto for their candidate du jour. Its sickening to observe.

I hate being resigned and cynical, its so gauche. Seems the only other options are to revel in the embarrassing spectacle that is the American political system, or actively contribute to its downfall. With the latter I used to think that armed uprising was the only way to bring down this country. Now it looks like pulling a voting lever will do the job quite thoroughly. You don't even have to worry about messing it up, any one will do.

Comment Re:How hard is it to find emails? (Score 5, Informative) 525

Her team did not "delete" emails -- that is a deliberately misleading term.

Yes, they did delete them. They even SAID they deleted them. That the server that had contained them had had all of its contents destroyed once they were done picking out the stuff that was work related.

What *actually* happened is they used discovery software to filter emails based on keywords.

But the lie she told was that her lawyers read each and every email. She knew that wasn't true, and so was lying. But that's OK, because her supporters know she lies to them, and they like being lied to.

People should really appreciate the amount of effort the FBI put into looking for malfeasance.

People should also recognize that they FBI could only look for corruption (and worse) within the material they had available. Clinton did not provide all of the requested material. She said she did, but that was another lie. Not an oversight, but a lie. Because we're not talking about "oops, a couple of emails you should have seen slipped through the cracks" - but "oops, thousands and thousands of emails you should have seen in that pile I printed out without header info were deleted."

In short: this fantasy that Hillary attempted to delete evidence is completely without basis

Other than the part where, you know, her records were deleted after her team put on a show of pulling out what they thought would make the appearance of complying with her requirements ... years after she was supposed to have turned ALL of it over to State so their archivists could make the distinction between personal and work-related records from her deliberately co-mingled collection.

What she *has* done is tried to *misrepresent*, the most egregious being her assertion that Comey agrees with her.

That was egregious, but it's hardly the worst of it. She knowingly, willingly, and repeatedly lied about her motivations and actions, and deliberately slow-walked and stonewalled at every turn. The fact that she'd whip up yet another lie to make it sound like the FBI's very clear identification of her multiple "untruths" on the matter is only egregious because it shows that she's still willing to lie even when she knows that we all know she's doing it. None of that matters, of course. Her supporters like that she lies, and none of that is legally meaningful. What IS legally meaningful is her testimony in front of congress. She spent long hours carefully avoiding direct answers to questions to she wouldn't perjure herself. We'll see if she's still as slippery on that front as her reputation suggests.

Separate from all of that, of course, is the actual content of the messages now being read. They exhibit a very clear pattern of tying access to her and her policy influence to being willing to dump piles of cash into her family business while she was in office. Legal jeopardy there? Hard to say. That would once again be Loretta Lynch's call, and we already know where she stands.

Comment Appraisals (Score 4, Interesting) 525

The people at State who have to appraise this material are the ones she was supposed to turn ALL of her co-mingled material over to on the day she left office. State's archivists are the ones who are supposed to weed through and figure out what's personal and what's not when someone in her role chooses to make everything personal. If she'd actually followed the rules and delivered all of it to them years ago as she was supposed to, she could have spent a solid year or two talking down all of the conflicts of interest and signs of corruption between her family business and access to her and her power as SoS and have Clinton-ed most of it into "the past" by now. She's got only herself to blame for deliberately ignoring her departure requirements, and then for slow-walking and hiding all of this stuff until it had to be pried out by the damn FBI and through suits pointing out FOIA shenanigans.

State will now say that it will take until next year to review this new material - plenty of time to stonewall and foot-drag past November. Her supporters are still running around claiming she hasn't once lied about any of this, and that nothing inappropriate to a private home-based mail server ever passed through her hands, despite the FBI pointing out the opposite.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Truth never comes into the world but like a bastard, to the ignominy of him that brought her birth." -- Milton