×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Kids Can Swipe a Screen But Can't Use LEGOs

profplump Re:Uh, grandparents might have some experience ... (290 comments)

So are you planning to reconstruct an unchanged society to loose these unchanged children in 20 years from now? If not I feel like maybe teaching them to use the social systems of their time might be valuable -- long ago children used to learn Middle English, but as it turns out technology changes (as does everything else), and children (and parents) much change with it.

I'm not saying that spacial perception will suddenly cease to be important, but the idea that children don't change is absurd.

/ As is the idea that all experience older people have is relevant or useful, or that all of the things younger people think they know better are wrong, or that either side is unjustified in their opinion

6 hours ago
top

Kids Can Swipe a Screen But Can't Use LEGOs

profplump Re:If I have kids... (290 comments)

If only there were some way to combine technology and social interaction. Something like a systematic way to express and broadcast thoughts and feelings for the purposes of sharing one's mind with other humans and visa versa.

6 hours ago
top

Kids Can Swipe a Screen But Can't Use LEGOs

profplump Re:most lego's are a rip off (290 comments)

It also fails to acknowledge that LEGO is itself technology -- relatively modern, high technology in the grand scheme of humanity -- or provide any meaningful distinction between "good" technologies like verbal language and "bad" technologies like iPads.

As with virtually all "kids these days" rants it's nothing more than an attempt to relive the past by forcing it on today's young people.

6 hours ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

profplump Re:Militia, then vs now (1172 comments)

All of society is based on the idea of depriving people of their rights. We trade the right to murder for the right to be secure against murder. We trade the right to enforce our individual political will upon others for the security of representative government. We can debate which things we value and which trades we want to make, but the idea that there's some ideal "free" society is irrational.

8 hours ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

profplump Re:Militia, then vs now (1172 comments)

So your argument is "it suited people in the past, and now we're stuck with it"?

8 hours ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

profplump Re:Militia, then vs now (1172 comments)

They modified the Bill of Rights. Most of the proposed amendments went through without any trouble, in a very short period, without any significant public debate or interaction. If we're going to take intent into account we could reasonably presume that, while they wanted the process to be deliberate, they did not expect it to be arduous.

But again, the basis of your argument is "the Bill of Rights was enacted a long time ago, so we shouldn't change it", which is contrary to the revolutionary actions and contemporary self-governance that the authors of the constitution undertook. If we're going to honor their "intent" we should hold their ancient opinions in less regard and plot our own course.

8 hours ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

profplump Re:Militia, then vs now (1172 comments)

I made no claim about the "intent" of the authors, other than that it was difficult to determine. I maintain that claim, as you've provided no counter-evidence, nor even a coherent counter-claim. The primary document is not terribly clear, provides almost no direct context or definitions, and was authored in a culture that very few people alive today firmly understand. The document itself does not have a single author, which further complicates the conception of "intent" because it's quite likely that the original authors did not fully share an intent even at the time it was written, just like most jointly authored documents today.

If that claim makes me corrupt I don't want to be subject to your conception of righteous. The idea that you can figure out what a group of people "really meant" by reading a handful of contemporary documents is ludicrous. It's almost as ridiculous as the idea that their intentions matter -- then as now only outcomes matter, as intentions are purely form of internal rationalization.

8 hours ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

profplump Re:Actually the correct fix is far fewer words (1172 comments)

You know we're allowed to make revisions to the constitution, right? And that they don't have to be mere clarifications to the original text? You know, like the existing 27 amendments do?

9 hours ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

profplump Re:What? (1172 comments)

So women don't get guns?

9 hours ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

profplump Re:Easy Militia States (1172 comments)

As it stands, basically you have to break the law if you want a hippopotamus for self-protection. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

9 hours ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

profplump Re:No advocating banning guns (1172 comments)

Freedom isn't an absolute ideal in and of itself. In any society freedom is balanced against many other goals, like order and security and reliable food production and access to professional soccer. We make many trades among those goals, and it's perfectly reasonable to debate what we should value and what trades we should make. But the idea that somehow any change in values or their balance is necessarily a negative actions because it represents the loss of a specific freedom, or that we need to permanently preserve the particular values that were important to a small group of rich colonists hundreds of years ago is itself tyrannical. We should be free as a people to set our own values for our own time just as the people did when they first formed our government.

9 hours ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

profplump Re:Militia, then vs now (1172 comments)

I don't know why you think you can determine what long dead people intended based on grammatically ambiguous language with very little context -- most humans have trouble figuring out what the person across the table from them intends, at least without significant interactive discussion.

But more importantly, why do we care what people hundreds of years ago *intended* or even what they *wrote*? What makes them so special? Why don't we get to choose our constitution in the same way they did? They took only a couple of years to add a whole slew of amendments -- why aren't we entitled to do the same, even if our choices now are contrary to their intent at the time?

9 hours ago
top

Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

profplump Re:Militia, then vs now (1172 comments)

If anything Internet is *less* anonymous than regular life in the 18th century.

But it's really irrelevant, because we don't have to continue using the best compromise a handful of rich colonists could come up with in 300 years ago -- we get to choose our own laws, including the constitution, just like they did.

9 hours ago
top

San Francisco's Housing Crisis Explained

profplump Re:The bay area used to have affordable housing (329 comments)

I know. The most important way in which we're not all the same is race -- which has an undisputed scientific basis and causal relationship to observed behavior -- which makes it the logical point of division for social problems.

Or it could be that race is merely a dynamic social construct with no clear or stable definition or inherent relationship to behavior and therefore probably not a particularly useful way to frame most social problems.

If we're going to deal with "facts" you first have to make race a "fact" and not just some arbitrary statistical division rooted in historical prejudices. Race isn't a property we can test for scientifically, it's not an inherently part of a person, and studies have shown that neither self-report nor externally-obsereved race are stable over time -- for example, people who have been imprisoned are more likely to identify themselves as black, as are other observers who are aware the subject has been imprisoned, even if they previously identified as another race.

None of which is to say that our individual and shared conceptions of race are unimportant, or uncorrelated with certain behaviors -- just like religion, social constructs can be very important in our lives and can greatly influence our behavior. But the idea that we can "find real answers" by treating violence as a racial problem is as ridiculous as the idea that we can bring peace to Palestine by treating the conflict as a religious problem.

yesterday
top

Navy Creates Fuel From Seawater

profplump Re:Energy (256 comments)

Converting electricity to liquid fuel, and in particular to a liquid fuel compatible with existing infrastructure, is potentially a big win. We're working on more sustainable electricity production, but no matter how much progress we make on the front there are still lots of applications where "throw some batteries at it" isn't a viable option for power storage -- being able to produce fuel from electricity and seawater is a way to bridge that gap in energy delivery without also requiring a breakthrough in electrical storage.

about a week ago
top

How the Internet Is Taking Away America's Religion

profplump Re:Knowledge (1036 comments)

The idea that somehow God is doing us a favor by putting us on the losing side of a rigged game is the sort of explanation you hear from battered spouses.

There are lots of other alternatives. God could have let us have free will but not created evil, for example. In your universe God is in control of literally everything, so he's being a dick just by creating a scenario where negative outcomes are *possible*. The idea that choosing good over evil is good assumes that evil is necessary (and a real thing) in the first place. We don't need bad things to exist to make choices -- we could choose between two good things and it would be just as meaningful.

And he's a double dick for blaming us his behavior, just like domestic abusers.

about two weeks ago
top

Will Cameras Replace Sideview Mirrors On Cars In 2018?

profplump Re:I don't get the dichotomy (496 comments)

They're talking about additional, side-view cameras, plus the recently-mandatory rear-view, as an alternative to side view mirrors, which have a number of downsides. No one is talking about taking away the ability to see beside your car.

about two weeks ago
top

Will Cameras Replace Sideview Mirrors On Cars In 2018?

profplump Re:It's not broken. (496 comments)

The efficiency savings differs from car to car. In smaller vehicles it can be something like 1.3 MPG, which is fairly significant. But even if it's only 0.2 MPG, over the life of the car that's still a lot of gas.

Also bear in mind that many modern mirrors are motorized, and sometimes heated -- they're already fairly complex and expensive. And they're a frequently damaged component.

If you're worried about replacing a failed camera system with a physical mirror, I don't understand why that needs to be engineered into the OEM product -- couldn't you just stick an aftermarket mirror on your door panel if you decided you wanted one? It could glue on, or stick into your window frame, without any significant interference to normal operation of the vehicle.

about two weeks ago
top

Will Cameras Replace Sideview Mirrors On Cars In 2018?

profplump Re:Not as good a field of view (496 comments)

Why would I need to? The only reason mirrors are adjustable is because people's eyes aren't all in the same place while driving. Cameras don't have that problem, and could be engineered to cover the entire relevant area.

about two weeks ago

Submissions

profplump hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

profplump has no journal entries.

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...