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


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

Comment Re:Explore the ocean depths (Score 1) 99

>But even on DS9 you still had Sisko's dad's restaurant

And if you had paid better attention - you would have noticed that he didn't charge the people who came to eat. He ran the restaurant because he got personal satisfaction from keeping his cultural cuisine heritage alive. His "wait staff" likewise did it because they got some or other personal benefit out of it.

>How did Sisko's dad get the property for the restaurant?
That one wasn't well answered in the show, land is tricky since on the planet itself it's definitely finite. But there are many possible ways to solve it. For example those who require land for something could request it, and some democratic process would allocate available land to people based on what they want to use it for - the less beneficial it is to other people, the lower on the list it goes. You could easily factor in exceptions for things like ancestral land (and there is evidence in other episodes and series that such exist). There are economic philosophies NOW that have potential answers to that question. For example anarcho-communism rejects the idea of OWNING land but considers entirely legitimate the idea of USING land. So if you're using it - you get to keep it, if you stop using it, somebody else can use it. As long as you use it though - nobody else can lay claim to it.

>Why is anyone "doing what they love" busing tables?
You'd have to ask them - but near the top of the list of possibilities would be: because they want to learn the recipes of their cultural cuisine heritage from a master, and working in his restaurant is their best opportunity to learn from him. But what any given individual finds rewarding - only that person can know.
If I had an income that removed the need to ever work again - I would still do lots of work, I'd code FOSS projects and relish being able to do them full-time as long as I wanted, I'd write stories, I'd study aeronotical engineering, I'd finally make a really good video game... and I'd also spend weeks sitting on the couch playing with my daughter and just relaxing. And sometimes, I'd do some pretty serious manual labour - building cupboards and such, just because I want them and something you made yourself is special in a way something you bought can never be.

>Again, people acting like they're participating in an economy.
They are- but it's a fundamentally different kind of economy. It's an economy without scarcity. So that changes the entire thing from the bottom up. The whole concept changes - what is valuable changes, what is tradeable is different. We're currently seeing some of the difficulties in making post-scarcity work in a scarcity-based economy in a topic that gets discussed on ./ all the time: copyright law. When copyright was created - printing presses were huge, expensive things that few people had. It was a minor industrial regulation that affected almost nobody. But now, the means to copy things is cheap and ubiquitous, and any particular copy is essentially free to make, so ewe can make unlimited numbers of copies. It's a post-scarcity technology now.
And it's messing up the scarcity based economy - so right now the answer being pursued is totalitarian market controls to induce artificial scarcity - that's a pretty terrible approach but it's also almost certainly doomed in the long term. When we solve that one, we can probably adapt that solution to all your other questions.

> I don't know what a post scarcity society would look like, but it wouldn't look like Star Trek.
I never claimed it would. In fact I'm pretty sure you brought Star Trek up and I merely responded to it. And like I said, the ST depicted on screen was quite far removed economically from whatever Gene had envisioned - simply because an actual paradise leaves you no conflict and without conflict there's no drama. That's why diluthium crystals were supposedly impossible to replicate - there had to be something for peoples to fight over or you couldn't have fights.
Roddenberry's vision was never revealed on screen - even he himself had to corrupt it to make it into television. So we can't actually judge if it would be a good approach or not.

But we can judge the concept: that in a society where resources aren't scarce, we have no need for an economy built on the expectation of scarcity, and indeed, as copyright is showing - it is a terrible fit to try and put one there as it leads to totalitarianism.

Comment Re:I honestly wonder... (Score 1) 133

I actually did a google before writing that, to make sure my memory wasn't letting me down - and the only stories I could find were about human-induced parthenogenesis post-dolly using a modification of the same technique.

If what you're saying is true, then I don't know about it. I did however read quite a few scientists on those stories declare that what they have achieved is considered impossible for mammals, so it seems unlikely.

Comment Re:Cue Jeff Goldblum (Score 2) 133

Life, as a whole has survived every extinction level event that happened -but each has caused massive extinctions. Individual species come and go, as long as they don't all go at once, life persists.
Life could be reduced to a single species of extremeophile bacteria living around one volcanic vent in the pacific ocean tomorrow... and in a million years the world would, once again, be crawling with many different creatures.
In fact, the immediate aftermath of mass extinctions tend to be the time when the greatest biodiversity is found. With all the old species gone, practically *anything* can survive - so some really weird creatures evolve and thrive for a while. Then the numbers get big enough for resources to stop being abundant and natural selection kicks in. The worst species start failing and die out.
After a while you get into an equilibrium state - where every breeding pair of every species only produce, on average, two offspring the go on to breed again. That state lasts until the next major extinction level event.

The reason life can survive whatever the universe throws at it is because life doesn't rely on any particular species, any of them can be lost - it just needs SOMETHING to survive.

Comment Re:EVEN TILLERSON says it's real. (Score 1) 240

>There are a HELL of a lot of steps between "mankind's activity affects the planet's temperature" and "It's a disaster that must immediately be fixed by crippling the economy and instituting totalitarian control on human activity by governments".

That would be a concern... if ANYBODY was proposing THAT as a solution. Why would we propose something that wouldn't work ? The proposed solution is "replace archaic 19th century technology with the best of 21st century technological ingenuity"

You know what happens when you invest in major technological advances ? Economies GROW - they do NOT get crippled, the exact opposite happens.
You know what we do NOT need to do to achieve this ? Control anybody's activities.

ALL we need to do is invest in the right technologies... and these technologies have so many other benefits that it becomes irellevant even if climate change wasn't true because we would STILL win a massive and absolutely unqualified victory for mankind. We'd all be wealthier and better off.

So the ONLY thing holding back the right kind of progress is not economics or science - it's political games played by the people who invested heavily in the old 19th century technology and don't want to lose those investments.
We're dooming mankind over the fucking sunk cost fallacy ...

Comment Enjoy it while it lasts (Score 2) 240

Trump has announced he wants to end the NASA Earth Sciences division... because if you stop doing the science the stuff they were studying goes away or something. So enjoy getting actual scientific reports from NASA about the state of our climate, providing valuable data to other scientists, while it still lasts...

Comment Re:I did (Score 1) 267

>The feminist groups will then argue that women should not be punished for taking time off for raising kids or not being able to work extra hours, etc.
You left out the most important part of the argument: BECAUSE SOCIETY DEMANDS THAT THEY DO.

Hell fixing that benefits MEN to. Suddenly - ME wanting to not work such long hours so I can spend time with MY kid should not be a reason to punish me either.

Why should the rest of us have to be compared to a few workaholic mentally ill morons with no life ? We work to live, they live to work - and no we should NOT be rewarding that because it's killing them AND us.

Comment Lets hear it (Score 1) 267

When a similar case was brought against google a while ago, a bunch of people here defended the company and their refusal to hand over compensation data - so let's hear it, will you defend the prime evil of tech as well ? Will you felate Ellison like you slobbered on Schmidt ? Or is refusing to cooperate into an investigation of your own compliance with the law only heroic when google does it ?

Comment Re:MAGA (Score 1) 105

They really don't. There are overwhelming studies that prove chartter schools NEVER outperform public schools - not anywhere. School performance is, at least 80%, determined by school neighbourhood and surrounding social conditions - budgets cannot change that, neither can privatisation (By any name).

The fastest way to improve school performance in the USA would be to set a 15 dollar minimum wage, set up a really solid childcare plan (Trump actually promised one but his cabinent candidate made no mention of it when asked - another forgotten promise ?) and decriminalize drug use with a focus on quality, free, treatment (Which will cost a lot less than all those people in prison for weed).

Those reforms - would increase school performance levels across the USA in a year. The problems with American schools are not in American schools, they are in American societies. You can't fix them with school budgets because the budget has less than nothing to do with it.

Comment Re:Racist or not (Score 1) 105

Dead people on voter registrations does not equal, or even IMPLY that a SINGLE dead person voted. All it implies is that in the time between voter registrations happening and elections - some people die and sometimes the rolls aren't updated fast enough.

This is by no means indicative of any risk that those names are voting - if you look for actual dead registered voters who SHOWED UP TO VOTE - the numbers drop to basically zero.

Comment Re:Racist or not (Score 1) 105

>1. Are you saying that minorities are not capable enough to go to the DMV? How racist of you.

Nobody is saying that. We're saying poor minimum wage hourly workers generally can't go to the DMV because if they miss a day of work they get fired. That these are overwhelmingly minorities is not something wrong with the people - it's just a convenient fact of historic economics which current racist lawmakers are exploiting.

>. Yeah, they definitely don't care about voter fraud.
I'm sure a lot of their supporters do. But those supporters are idiots. Voter ID doesn't prevent voter fraud - it IS voter fraud, the single largest and most common kind !
Stopping legitimate voters from being able to vote is the ONLY significant voter fraud that happens in America.

>Sorry sweetie, you used your "racism" card too much, and now it's alllll worn out. Google "The Boy Who Cried Wolf."
So you won't FIX the racism... you'll just go neener-neener "I can't hear you" little white snowflake ? Racism has not been cried too much - hell current uses don't even cover most current instances of the problem ! If anything it's underreported. That there is enough cries for you to not sound completely crazy to YOURSELF pretending it's said to much just PROVES HOW FUCKING RACIST YOU REALLY ARE.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you would know the value of money, go try to borrow some. -- Ben Franklin