Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:When I was a boy... (Score 1) 301

Why would anyone want to buy a stock that doesn't pay dividends? I know, you'll sell it when the price of that stock goes up. But the price of the stock is a result of people wanting to buy it. Which brings me back to my first question: why would anyone "invest" in a company that is not going to pay you back for your investment? Where is the money coming from? Poor souls who are buying it hoping that future poor souls will buy it from them for more?

Comment Re:Rights are not inherent. Ever. (Score 1) 583

I think you summed up our disagreement best with

Because a "right" has to mean more than "I think we should do things this way" when those who have the exclusive power to do things that way don't agree with you.

You see, that's exactly what a right is. When the gp said "Privacy is an inherent human right" he meant that it was important for all people (govt included) to respect that. The govt doesn't respect that though, and if you accept privacy as a right, the govt becomes an aggressor and in the wrong. The same thing for life and liberty. The govt can and has taken those things away, but that makes the govt wrong and illegitimate. You said "They're just ideas. Perhaps good, perhaps not, but still, no more than thoughts." Again, true. But while those in power take and take and take, the fact that those rights still exist and can be shown to arise naturally makes those in power wrong. Your response is mainly "who the fuck cares what you say your rights are? Those in power take what they want." This, unfortunately, is true, too. But one day we might be able to rid ourselves of those in power who control us. We might have the opportunity to create a new or smaller society and we'll need rules. Our current govt was conceived with those rights in mind, for the most part. They just missed with the checks and balances.

Rights are not something that will protect you. They won't keep you out of jail; it is up to us to defend our rights. They are a philosophical point that defines the boundaries between people. They're more than a nice thought, though - they are what we use to describe a moral society. But they won't keep you out of jail.

Comment Re:Rights are not inherent. Ever. (Score 2) 583

There are no "inherent human rights...they are simply grants supported by power.

Well, not really true. The inherent rights to your own life and liberty arise from the assumption that people own themselves. Of course, this is an assumption that we've made that has allowed democracy and freedom to flourish. You might not accept that assumption. You might start with the assumption that society has ownership of the people, in which case you'll likely end up with a communistic government. But we started with the assumption that we own ourselves, which makes sense because outside the context of a society, people are free to do as they please.

Now if we own ourselves we own our lives. No one can take that away unless we give it to them. Likewise, if we own ourselves we own our actions, and by extension, our labor. Suddenly the "inherent" rights of life, liberty, and property are starting to show up. Your assertion that "they are simply grants supported by power" is wrong. Sure, the govt can force us to do things. They can stick us in jail, they can beat us. But they don't own our life liberty and property. They are stealing it from us. This is not a legitimate power. It is not a power that an outside observer can support. It is a power that derives its strength from the mere fact that it is stronger than us. As soon as a stronger power comes along, the old govt will topple and will prove to be transient. A govt based on the assumption of individual sovereignty, however, will stand the test of time - even when temporarily taken over by a stronger power - because it is based on a simple assumption that people inherently want to believe.

Comment Tax refund? (Score 1) 1065

So if your stocks go down in price, are you going to get a tax refund? You can't just tax someone because their assets have become more valuable. If diamonds suddenly skyrocketed in price you can't go hunting down everyone who owns diamonds and ask for money. Are you going to tell them to sell their diamonds so they can pay your tax?

Comment Re:Perspective (Score 1) 438

Well I know Apple will sell it to you, but I'm more curious about what plans a carrier will offer you; I've heard it's cheaper than if you go the phone through them but I haven't found anyone who will even mention unlocked phone plans. (Except for small indie carriers, of course. But I'm more curious about the big ones.)

Comment Re:The outrage... (Score 2) 126

Well maybe if they titled it

Using Video Cameras to Optimize Store Layouts

but instead they used words like "tracking" and "surveillance. I think it's a really cool problem: creating software that uniquely identifies a person in your store and sees how they interact with your floorplan. It'd be even cooler if the software could generate a better floorplan using that information and made it easier for people to move about and naturally tend toward the places you'd like them to go. I know you hate being manipulated, but there's something exciting about seeing an iterative algorithm result in a subconsciousness change in human behavior.

Comment Re:GPS-guided? (Score 1) 140

No. They didn't. GPS is but one of many redundant navigation systems the drone had. If the GPS is disagreeing with the INS and airspeed sensors, it would drop the GPS signal in a heartbeat. And those are only the unclassified navigation systems that all military aircraft have. If Iran was capable of tricking the drone into landing, they wouldn't need to send the drone to China to be exploited.

Comment Re:So... (Score 1) 140

All in due time, Moheeheeko. Right now drones are very susceptible to jamming and satellite failures. Helicopter pilots navigate primarily using ground reference, which robots aren't good at yet. We need a backup to GPS and TACAN. Delivering beans to the wrong location isn't really a problem - just an inconvenience, really. Delivering live weapons (as in, shooting) to the wrong area would result in enough of a public outcry to push the entire unmanned program back a decade.

Comment been blinding people for a while (Score 1) 398

Slashdot Top Deals

In less than a century, computers will be making substantial progress on ... the overriding problem of war and peace. -- James Slagle