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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Meh. (Score 1) 45

Bullshit. Rich people tend to have far far better health care. The size of your parents' wallet is not genetically heritable, therefore your claim that somehow Darwinism would solve the problem is utter crap. As with all Social Darwinists, you either twist what Darwin was saying, or you just simply don't understand it.

A few points:

1. Cooperation is as much a result of Darwinian selection as competition. Humans are social animals, not solitary hunters. Even Neanderthals appeared to take care of their infirm, for chrissake.
2. You can legally inherit money, but it confers no genetic advantage. A moron can just as easily have a trust fund as a genius.
2a. There is an at least partial caveat to that, in that poor nutrition during the key developmental years that is often found in the poorest societies can in fact stunt cognitive development. But again, that still doesn't mean rich people are genetically superior, it just means good nutrition and health care allows them to reach a sort of maximum of cognitive development that members of poor societies are often deprived of. The same would happen to a baby born in a rich society if it is deprived of protein and calories necessary for development.
3. There may be a genetic component to earning lots of money; in that either intelligence or risk taking behaviors can likely influence a person's ability to earn money, but high intellect and risk taking can also be associated with some potentially deleterious behaviors as well (i.e. links to depression or, in the case of risk takers, to physically or legally dangerous exploits).
4. The wealthier society, the lower the fertility rate, which generally means it isn't the poor societies who are going to be wiped out, but rather the wealthier ones, which is why they end up having to build big walls which they then are forced to open the gates to because to remain economically viable you need to have some way of generating the required 2.1 children per female to at least maintain a stable population over time.
5. As one can see from poorer societies, women can produce a number of offspring even if their average lifespans are considerably less than your average citizen of an industrialized country, so the idea that "Darwinism" (whatever you mean by that) is just going to leave all the nice rich people in place, and all the poor people will drop dead doesn't even make any bloody sense.
6. Social Darwinism has about as much to do with Darwinism/evolutionary biology as horoscopes have to do with astronomy. It was long ago debunked, but remains oddly popular among Libertarians in wealthy countries who either directly or indirectly benefit greatly from the labour of people in poor societies, and who seem to feel that it somehow justifies that pecking order. If Social Darwinism resembles any kind of evolution, it is the Lamarckian evolution that Darwin set about strongly critiquing in his theory.

Comment Re:LOL, very long... like since the first video ga (Score 2) 163

Step out of the time machine. Back then you could not expect the game to look anything like the advertisment on the box. Why? Because anyone who had at least a minimum of knowledge of the matter KNEW that this is impossible with the technology back then. If an Atari 2600 game promised you "exciting racing action" you did NOT expect a first person view in 1900x1200 resolution and Dolby 7.1 sound. You had certain expectations, within the limitations of the capabilities of the console back then, and usually (!) they were fulfilled. Yes, there was a LOT of crappy Atari games, which also contributed to the eventual crash in 83, but that's not the point now. There's a lot of crap today as well, but, guess what, that crap is usually not full of unfulfilled promises.

When you have today someone promising you different ships behaving differently, different multiplayer modes, a procedurally generated universe with multiple NPC factions waging war around you (and without your participation), and that you can take sides and that the NPC factions will react accordingly, then you can actually believe that. Because it is not only possible, it has been done before.

This is not a completely outlandish expectation like it would be for an Atari 2600 game.

Comment Thanks, HP (Score 3, Funny) 52

But I think we can brave the perils of untested ink, we will chart for you the untested waters of that dangerous substance that mortal men (and HP engineers, obviously) don't dare to touch, we shall make it our mission to ensure that these nefarious cartridges and ink tanks shall not remain on the shelves, for we will drain them, use and abuse them, test them to the limit, so no longer you have to endure the dangers of untested ink in your printers.

No, there is no need to thank us. That's our gift to you, our beloved maker of printer hardware. This is brand loyalty!

(tl;dr: HP, don't try to out-bullshit internet users, we are better at this than even your marketing department)

Comment Re: meh (Score 1) 394

but what are the chances of finding a good vintage of scotch to go with all of this breaded goodness they are going to be having up there?

Alcohol is definitely going to space. Ballantine's zero-gravity glass is made in cooperation with something called the Open Space Agency, which also has a design for an automated Dobsonian telescope. Ardbeg is going to space. And a vacuum still is an old science-fiction trope.

Comment Re:Everybody should be prepared to die. (Score 3, Funny) 394

Out of several tens of billions of humans, only a fraction have not yet died, and of those who died, only a small percent of disputed cases indicate recovery.

On the contrary, I have never died before and rumors that I would do so are spread by fact-checkers of the liberal press and corrupt global warming scientists.

Comment Some Artistic License (Score 1) 394

I like the part in the SpaceX video where the rocket lands, and the door opens on magnificent desolation. This is artistic license. Obviously the material for a habitat would precede the arrival of people.

But yes, a first-try planetary colony won't necessarily work. Getting there is dangerous, and once you're there being able to continue to provide the population with air, water, food, shelter, and energy is going to have significant risks of lethal failures.

Slashdot Top Deals

The answer to the question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is... Four day work week, Two ply toilet paper!