Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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 no revenge when you are dead (Score 1) 512

It is self evident that killing people will make enemies of their families. [...] If you came and killed my child I would not report those trying to kill you to the police or army. I would do everything I could to support those trying to kill you. As I said above, it is self evident that the Palistinian survivors of this will do everything they can to kill Israelis in the future.

You can not be an enemy if you are dead. This idea that you would get revenge is silly.

This conflict will end because one side will die. The sooner this happens, the lower the body count. (the number of dead can greatly exceed the total population if the conflict drags on for generations)

Comment not so bad I think (Score 1) 655

Suppose we just go for the thigh meat. We cut off the joints, then push the meat out with a blunt metal probe. (should work on grasshoppers at least) Although this is more wasteful than a fancy fillet, the equipment would be way faster and cheaper.

The result is also a chunk size suitable for burger. It doesn't need to be treated like pink slime. It need not be breaded and fried.

Comment do not confuse animals with humans (Score 1) 655

If you get them mixed up, then your treatment of animals is related to your treatment of humans. This applies to both good people and evil people. For example, it you make you join PETA if you don't like killing. You'd see nothing wrong with PETA's idea that killing a rat is like killing a child.

If you can keep humans separate in your mind, as you ought to, then killing animals is no big deal. It can neither horrify nor satisfy an evil urge. It's kind of boring actually.

Comment so separate the meat (Score 1) 655

I think you CAN separate the meat. Look, slashdot just ran a story on a robot that would draw blood. There was also one with a robot folding towels and many with robots driving cars. Machine vision has reached a point where I'm pretty sure you could use it to pick out the meat.

Comment eat them for ethical reasons (Score 1) 655

If there isn't a market for meat, then those animals will never even get a chance to live. They simply won't be needed. It's like you're killing them before conception. Meat eaters at least give the animals life, allowing them to be born and usually even grow up. The animals get the best years of their lives, humanely euthanized before facing the suffering of old age.

Comment asses, balls, hoofs, horns, and hides (Score 1) 655

I'd love to eat insects if you stop implying that I have to eat the horrible parts. I also don't want processed "meat" like hot dogs. Find a way to butcher insects properly, and I'll gladly wolf them down.

For example, I can imagine a machine (sort of a robot) that gets the meat out of grasshoppers. First it yanks off the back legs; the rest goes to compost. Second it snips off the leg joints, keeping only the big thigh section. Third it uses a blunt metal probe to push the meat out of the exoskeleton. The result is tasty little bits of meat that can be sold like burger. Probably I'd make tacos with it.

Comment Re:glad I wasn't your kid (Score 1) 230

Proposed mechanism:

The underlying causes are inate intellectual ability and drive. People with these traits are more likely to learn many things, languages included. People with these traits are also more effective at multi-tasking, prioritizing, resisting Alzheimer's disease, using a large vocabulary, and learning math.

Comment glad I wasn't your kid (Score 0) 230

Those hours are a chunk of time stolen from the life of a child. He can never get them back.

If a decade or two is devoted to the problem, then there will be a small benefit. It's extremely unlikely to make up for the investment. He could get a tiny bit of extra pay in the military or he could get a job with the CIA. This is nothing to get excited about.

Comment Re:I HAVE RISEN !! (Score 0) 64

This idea persists because women collectively don't get all that offended by non-virgin men. Considering all the diseases, plus the risks of the man supporting some other woman (willingly or not), this is kind of a problem. We could use a derogatory word for men who run around.

That said, I don't see this changing much. There is an evolutionary reason for women to prefer men who get around; they may be more likely to produce sons who can do so. There is likewise an evolutionary reason for men to prefer women who are hesitant, at least if the man could end up providing resources.

Comment Re:"problem" and "need" are relative (Score 1) 185

I suppose you also think we should find a cure for being black (or other reviled minority) in heavily white-racist dominated regions?

Black people don't randomly get born to white people.

Better comparisons can be had with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, with Down Syndrome, and with people who are born deaf. We should avoid treating them as less human... does this mean we should not seek to prevent or cure these issues? People with all these issues are treated as less than human, yet they can live their lives. Are they OK? Maybe you think the rest of the world is the problem, and these people are in no need of cures?

Comment Re:the DSM was political (Score 1) 185

Yeah, and broken bones are most commonly a symptom of sports so obviously sports should be classified as a cluster of diseases.

There is an optimum level of physical activity. If you get seriously far from this, then yes you do have a mental problem. (land luge, skiing Mount Everest, diving with gases more exotic than helium...) We might not bother forcing you to get treatment; this would deprive us of seeing you earn your Darwin Award on youtube.

And of course, if failure to produce offspring was actually some form of harm, the catholic priesthood should probably be diagnosed.

Yes, except for the fact that the beliefs which lead to priesthood are actually the norm. The norm is exempt from being an illness, even if it is wacko.

Atheism, at least in the form of secular humanism, in general does not concern itself with where folks stick their parts or argue any moral obligation to reproduce.

I never said "moral". This is more of a "you fail" issue.

I suppose I do think that the healthy and intelligent people have some obligation to reproduce, but somebody who lacks the proper urges (one way or another) might not really be healthy anyway.

Comment "problem" and "need" are relative (Score 1) 185

Is ADHD a "problem" that needs to be "cured"? How about Aspberger's or the inability to spell words like that? What risks and side effects would be tolerate? Suppose it requires brain surgery or virus-mediated genetic engineering with a 7% risk of death and a 29% risk of survival with disability.

Here we have people who are obviously abnormal (maybe 1% or 3%, whatever), who obviously have brain structure differences, and who are obviously having problems. They are far more likely to commit suicide. In the USA, they are far more likely to get HIV. By any objective measure, we ought to be searching for a cure.

Most of them don't want a cure, or at least won't admit to wanting one. We can save money by not bothering! This reminds me of the sad situation of deaf people who seek to make deaf children (no joke) and who view people who get cochlear implants as being sort of like traitors or sellouts. If most deaf people were this way, we'd never have developed any treatments.

Comment the DSM was political (Score 1) 185

The other problem with DSM is that it's too normative. Homosexuality is a "disorder", but then when you start treating homosexuals nicely they suddenly become less traumatized, more come out, and you realize that most of them aren't as sick as you thought, and that a lot of the sick ones are like that because you marginalized them in the first place.

The concept of a mental illness is fundamentally normative. Even if you think homosexuality is perfectly OK, you need to admit that it was removed for purely political reasons. Objectively it is clearly abnormal: perhaps 1%, perhaps 3%, whatever... but TINY.

If you insist on adding the requirement that there be harm, and you want to dismiss the suicide issue as a trauma result, the situation is still pretty clear from numerous viewpoints. In the USA, AIDS is still primarily a homosexual disease. I can even argue this from an atheist viewpoint: if something prevents offspring in the Nth generation, impacting one's evolutionary fitness, then it causes harm. (and we all know what the typical Christian/Muslim/Jew would argue)

Given that we've already found brain differences, this new system seems like it can not avoid bringing back homosexuality as a medically accepted illness. This is not to say it can be treated or that any future treatment would be worthwhile, because the cure can be worse than the disease. Nearly nobody is going to risk surgical and/or genetic brain modification to become heterosexual. Almost certainly it would be considered unethical to even attempt such a risky modification.

BTW, there tend to be differences between the brains of republicans and democrats. Care to declare one of them in need of treatment? (sure, the other team!)

Slashdot Top Deals

Mathemeticians stand on each other's shoulders while computer scientists stand on each other's toes. -- Richard Hamming