Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:Who said what? (Score 1) 287

The summary is fine. Pepe the Frog is a beloved meme, check. Pepe has been recently adopted by the far right, check. The only thing wrong is the headline, which can easily be misread as meaning the ADL has made a blanket "All uses of Pepe are examples of Hate".

The biggest thing that's wrong is... well, Slashdot's readers. Give them something you can easily misunderstand, and they'll launch half cocked, often with an interpretation even more stupid than the obvious misinterpretation.

And, BTW, to the OP of this thread: the ADL is one of the oldest surviving and famous groups that fights anti-semitism. It's hardly obscure, and a quick Google search would have given you the answer.

Comment Re:1Million People (Score 1) 381

Honestly, if you wanted to maximize population expansion rate and you were hand-selecting the crew, you'd send 100% female and cryopreserved female embryos. You'd choose women with small stature to maximize how many you can send / keep alive with a give payload mass, and ideally from families/cultures that tend to have large numbers of children starting at a young age.

In practice, of course, there are other factors beyond maximizing reproduction. Particularly if the people going are paying customers rather than people being selected by some external organization.

I'd think that, considering the risks, a single failure in power and all the frozen embryos will die. The advantage of sending adults who produce their own gametes is that, as long as a single couple survives, he will produce unlimited gametes for the duration of his lifespan (barring exposure to radioactivity or solar flares or whatever the hell exists in the harsh environment) and she can produce a single child a year.

Whats more, using adults as containers for gametes gives you automatic protection and defense of those gametes. The freezer containing embryos will not even be able to identify danger, much less retreat from it.

Comment Re: we were just heading back into an ice age. (Score 1) 164

My point wasn't about efficacy - frankly I don't believe it would be very effective, mass murder rarely is. Such a process would also require enormous resources, which creates a breeding ground for corruption. In practical terms - it would not be an effective way to achieve the goal and would open the door to many genuine atrocities.

My point was to put into perspective the point where libertarians ought to stop being libertarians - because of what becomes justified (justified != a good idea) when they do. People have a right to freedom of religion - but when you start believing you have the right to blow me up in the name of your deity I get the right to shoot you first. People have a right to freedom of speech - but when you are advocating that people should kills gays - we bloody well will lock you up, even in the USA. On the other side - I am (a kind of) socialist in my thinking, but at the point where socialists advocate violent revolutions I no longer support them. Those have historically caused massive hardship and slaughter of innocents, installed dictators and consistently failed to produce socialist outcomes anyway - the most successful socialist states achieved it by peaceful and democratic processes.
No matter how good your idea is, no matter how nobel your goals may seem to be - all ideas have limits, and that limit is where other people can make a reasonable argument that your pursuit of this idea puts their welbeing at risk.

Even if libertarians claim they would offer workable alternatives to government prevention (and so far none has - all I've heard is 'recourse' which is the old Murray Rothbard argument and doesn't offer anything resembling a workable solution but they like to push that one because it *sounds* like the are solving the problem without actually stopping anybody from killing you) a sane version would declare that all laws and regulations on matters of public safety will stay intact until AFTER their alternative systems are in place, tested and working.
You don't create a vaccuum in which slaughter can happen while going through the arduous process of building something else, even if you think that something is better (by whatever measure you decide it is better). You build the alternative BEFORE you dismantle the current one.

Because a bad system for public safety is still better than none at all, even if it's briefly - and legal changes are never 'briefly'.

I absolutely do agree that the best way to deal with the particular threat posed by libertarians is not through killing them in self defence. Hell even if somebody attacks you and wants to kill you right now my belief is that you shouldn't kill him in self defence if you have any other options. If you can escape - then you shouldn't kill. If you can disable without death then you should take that option.
Killing, even in self defence, is a last resort. I wasn't advocating we kill libertarians - I was merely putting into perspective the risk they pose. If you believe in libertarianism, fine, we will never agree but we can live alongside each other. On issues of social liberalism we could even be allies even if our economics will always be as opponents.
There's nothing wrong with that. But you ought to stop being a libertarians BEFORE the point where it risks the health and safety of other people. Just as you ought to stop being a christian BEFORE the point where you bash gays.

Comment Re: we were just heading back into an ice age. (Score 1) 164

Oh, and all this is academic. Lets assume your insanity is true and climate change to this degree is normal and the historical record actually supports that claim. It's bullshit but lets pretend it was real.

See we have other records - archeological, anthropological etc. etc and the thing is - they show that every major climate shift humanity has experienced was a major calamity and we very nearly didn't survive any of them as a species. Every single one came close to an extinction level event for us. Every single one caused massive displacement, starvation and wars.

And we are MORE vulnerable now than we were when those happened. They happened when displacement was a much smaller problem. If you went somewhere else, there was a good chance you could find somewhere that somebody else wasn't already living and prepared to fight to keep you out off... there are no such places anymore. There is nowhere for the displaced to flee but to your country. America can't figure out how to deal with a few hundred thousand refugees from wars they caused - how the fuck are you going to deal when there's a few hundred million or more fleeing starvation and hunger and drought ? Sure it may make some places green which aren't now. Those places won't be producing much food anytime soon though - most of them are areas where the soil is not conducive to farming. No matter how much warmer and wetter you make it - Siberia will not have productive farmland for centuries. The soil is just to dead. And meantime - the places that were good farmland won't be anymore.
Oh and the plagues... you are having a political crisis trying to deal with Zika right now. Malaria kills more people every year than any other cause. Even a small increase in the global average *massive* increases the areas where these diseases can spread. Many economists have calculated that Africa's economic woes can be *entirely* attributed to Malaria. Sure we have wars and corruption but so does everywhere else. We alone have malaria to deal with. With all those productive people dying young. All those kids missing school because mommy is sick, husbands and family missing work to take care of her and all that money wasted on funerals in a classic broken window fallacy.
Imagine America with Africa's economy - all your wealth destroyed, all your resources spent just trying to avoid complete collapse - and for the same reason.

That's the thing you think is not a major problem. Just because nature can be a bitch doesn't mean it's not idiotic to horrible things to ourselves. The lesson to learn from natural climate shifts is not that climate shifts is just something that happens and so what... the lesson is that it has come pretty close to eradicating our species several times, and never failed to cause enormous hardship and uncountable deaths and it will be *worse* next time.
And, much like the zombie appocalypse, in a major climate change scenario - the single greatest threat is not the weather, it's the other humans. Who will happilly kill you for the water you have.

Comment Re: we were just heading back into an ice age. (Score 1) 164

>the amount of industrialization 150 years ago was trivial compared to today comparable to volcanic activity
And you were doing so well. You almost sounded like what you were saying wasn't complete bullshit... and then you come up with this such and complete and utter fabrication that it's impossible to believe somebody could actually still seriously claim this.
The good news is - we don't have to guess, we have actual numbers. See the American Geophysical Union - who are pretty much the premier experts on volcanoes - actually answered the question. The average annual total CO2 output from volcanoes is 0.025% of what is put out by coal power plants. Just power plants, and just coal. That's not counting cars, or oil plants, or gas plants or any of the other emission generating fossil fuel industries. Just power plants alone put out 4000 times as much CO2 every year as all the volcanoes in the world.
Oh and volcanic climate change, more often than not, is cooling - not heating. Volcanoes are more likely to cover the atmosphere in sun-blocking ash and sulphur, which makes it colder. It was a volcano, after all, that gave Europe it's infamous 19th century year without a summer. Volcanic heating from CO2 is actually extremely rare. It's just not a factor - which is why we believe that most previous major shifts in climate had to do with solar activity or changes in the eath's orbit. Things which are not happening to any significant degree at the moment.

>So then - the rise in temperatures 150 years ago was not a result of man-made global warming,
Firstly, the industrial revolution started in the 18th century, not in the 19th, and was well along by 150 years ago - so your claim about the level of industrialization is another flagrant lie easily disputed by anybody who passed high school history class. Now high school history classes tend to be less than stellar in accuracy, being more obsessed with propaganda than actual history but they do tend to get the damn *dates* right.
Besides which - nobody claims there was a significant rise 150 years ago because there wasn't. What there was, was the beginning of the rise that is significant TODAY. It started then, small, and has been accelerating ever since.

>do you think that a libertarian property owner would have no problem (and no recourse in a libertarian society)
Recourse isn't good enough. Recourse cannot happen until after somebody did something bad - perhaps fatal. The ONLY reason to have recourse at all, since there is neither justice nor any other good served by vengeance, is as a deterrent. Prevention is what we actually need.
It's not GOOD enough to punish the ones who did it for what harm they cause - you need to make it so damn scary that they don't try. Civl lawsuits don't work for that, we have them now - and they are not working (that was what Murray Rothbard proposed and it's pretty much the only well developed libertarian theory on the subject).
And what's worse is that the court system as a whole - and indeed any recourse system - is fatally flawed as a way of dealing with this and property rights even moreso. For several reasons:
1) Poluting your OWN land is STILL evil - because polution doesn't obey land borders
2) Recourse need to exist for people who don't own land as well - in fact, currently, they are the ones most in need of protection, most current toxic polution events happen on land without clear single-person ownership under western law.
3) It's extremely hard to prove, how *do* I prove this poison came from YOUR factory and not your competitors ? What about air polution ? A recent study showed that a sigificant portion of the smog in LA originates from factories in china. Polution not only doesn't obey land borders - it doesn't even obey national borders. All polution is global polution. That brings up matters of jurisdiction, huge costs and difficulty proving the guilty party and then proving that the harm you suffered was from that polution. It's a nightmare and, generally, only rich people get anything. A system that only protects the rich may be a libertarian wet dream (even if they always pretend it isn't really what they want) but the rest of us see it as batshit insane and, rightfully, consider it a threat to our lives and safety which we are justified to defend ourselves against.

I think shooting libertarians in the street should be legal on the basis that what they are doing, even if it's only politically and in who they vote for, the policies they advocate, is a legitimate and immediate threat to your life and the lives of your loved ones. And there is nothing extreme about that view - it's the only logical conclusion and the ONLY mitigating factor is that most of them are not doing so out of actual mallice but out of stupidity. A conclusion which logically follows from the fact that most of them are also endangering their own lives.

Comment Re: How about Government poisoning your water? (Score 1) 164

I can vote government out and you bet your ass the republicans will be losing Michigan over Flint. I cannot vote out PG&E.

Thats the difference. History has almost no examples at all of elected governments killing many citizens.
In the case of Flint the fuckup was enforced by the state government against the demands of the local government who actually wanted to stop it. Interestingly the state government was the party of small government. See when you make government too small to stop corporations from killing you, you also made it too small to stop itself. You need a government of competing interests to act as watchdogs over each other. That unfortunately requires it to be large enough to have competing interests. Such a larger government is more efficient than a smaller one too because government departments actually have competition.

The failure of the EPA to prevent Flint is a direct result of congressional cuts to the EPA budget. Making government smaller kills the watchdogs that restrain it.

Comment Re: She's right (Score 1) 164

Oh deniers love that lie. Claiming that warm periods which were so regional they didn't even *change* the global average were somehow spikes hotter than the climate change now so we don't have to worry. It's a peculiar form of eurocentrism to pretend that somethign which only happened in Europe happened to the world.

Comment Re:So we're already committed (Score 1) 164

Your maths are a bit off. You forgot that the O2 in CO2 came from the atmosphere in the first place. It's not exactly accurate since oxygen atoms don't have the same mass as carbon atoms but we can for a quick near-enough guess say that 2/3rds of the CO2 mass was there before the CO2 was there, only it used to be O2. Only the 1/3rd that is C was added by industrialization - having previously been sequestered since the carboniferous age.

So while your maths is cool - you need to adjust how you're doing the maths to factor in the mass of hte O2 that was there BEFORE it was part of the CO2.

Comment Re: we were just heading back into an ice age. (Score 3, Insightful) 164

The site's tagline is: "The national daily championing freedom, smaller government and human dignity."

Now while I'm sure there are genuine good people who just happen to believe government should be small - unfortunately their voices are drowned out by the insane bastards who want government to be powerless so there isn't anybody to stop them from throwing poison in your drinking water and making your air unbreathable. Climate change denial is a forte of theirs and claiming models aren't accurate (mostly by either lying about what models predicted or lying about what the actual temperature is right now) is a key part of how they deny things. The whole "we don't know and we can't know" schpiel from people claiming to be champions of science (which is the thing we use to know things with) is ridiculous. But that tagline says it all. That's not an article about maths, statistics, science or probability though it claims to be all of the above. It's an article about politics - which is being disguised because they don't want you to know it's about politics. It's an attempt to achieve a political goal - regardless of scientific fact.

When you get to the point where you will deny science and reality for the sake of your poiltical beliefs - no matter how nobel those beliefs may otherwise be - they've become evil. At the point where you want government to be too small to keep the water drinkable, the air breathable and the CO2 levels survivable - small government libertarians are no longer just people with whom I have a difference of opinion - they become an actual and legitimate threat to my personal security and the national security of all nations. Killing them becomes justified on the basis of self defence. *
You generally want to stop following the line of any ideology before the point where it becomes justifiable for other people to kill you in self defence over what you do in the name of that ideology.

*Note that I am speaking of what would be justified - not what I would actually do. I'm a pacifist and consider force the very last resort. I don't think we are *quite* at the last resort level in general yet. In a few specific cases yes, but not in general. If you live in a town where somebody is dumping poison in your drinking water though - and you kill the CEO of the company who did it and every idiot who tried to stop the government from preventing it, you are not a murderer though, that's self defence and even the most devoted pacifist will not begrudge you that.

Slashdot Top Deals

To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)