Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 872

Except that nuclear winter was an extremely overblown idea, part of the scaremongering of the era. And it was never the bombs that caused it, it was the fires they started. And even the comparatively small effect they would have is based on the idea that nobody would put out those fires - extremely unlikely given the (greatly exaggerated) consequences. Every remaining aircraft in the world would be busy putting them out, even if it cost the pilots their lives. Plenty of people are capable of great self-sacrifice to save those they love.

Comment Re:Least worst (Score 1) 872

Not really. Maybe, sometimes, if the popular vote mattered, but for the president it doesn't. Most states are pretty firmly in one camp or the other, and only in a handful of swing states will such thin margins even be considered.

Now, if we're talking local/state elections, especially in areas not gerrymandered out of democracy, then yes you're absolutely correct, and I'd love to see a credible third party concentrate on those instead of making a lot of mostly-pointless noise at the federal level.

Comment Re:Two candidates (Score 1) 872

Unfortunately, it's a built-in feature of first-past-the-post voting systems such as ours. There can, very occasionally, be upsets, but generally speaking if a third party candidate hasn't made a really impressive showing by this point, they're not going to have even a chance. Had Bernie decided to run independent or Green he might have had a credible shot at the presidency, but more likely he would have ended up splitting the vote with Hillary, and given Trump an easy win. That's an inherent problem with our voting system, and the reason things like instant runoff voting were invented.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 872

Oh please.

When has any bigwig ever been executed in the US, even for crimes far worse than seling contaminated milk? Heck, US banks did their best to crash the global economy while enriching the bigwigs, and got nice fat loans to keep them in business as punishment. Nobody even went to jail except for a whistle-blower or two.

Comment Re: Hmm (Score 1) 872

Don't kid yourself - even if global civilization were somehow bombed to pre-industrial technological levels, the only major resource there's a potential lack of is energy. Pretty much everything else is bountifully available in landfills in concentrations and purities far exceeding anything that was ever available naturally. And while destroying industrial capacity would be easy, destroying the technological knowledge needed to rebuild would be far, far more difficult.

Once the worst of the radioactive fallout had washed away, life would probably be quite comfortable relatively quickly. Even if we did have to deal with high infant mortality from mutations, and lifespans cut short by early-onset cancer for a few generations.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 872

Don't believe the propaganda. Chernobyl released about 400x the radiation of the bomb at Hiroshima, and aside from the epicenter itself, the exclusion zone is apparently doing quite well. Though the microbial life seems harder hit by the radiation, and it remains to be seen what the long-term consequences of that will be.

Even the "nuclear winter" fears were later admitted to being overblown, and had little to do with "nuclear" in the first place - it would have been the results of all the cities burning down due to infrastructure damage and the presumption that nobody would be willing to race into the radioactive epicenter to put out the fires.

Granted, if all the major cities and military bases in the world were taken out by Satan2 class missiles then the fallout would be more intense, but give it a year and most of the world would still be livable, you'd just have to accept much higher rates of cancer and mutation for a century or two.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 872

In fairness though, while it's been a while, the US was far more ruthless in conquering it's neighbors (the term "genocide" is often used in regards to the native peoples), and has ignored basically every treaty we ever made with them, right up to the current DAPL travesty where we're unilaterally appropriating sovereign lands to run an oil pipeline.

Not to mention that while we haven't engaged in open conquest in a long time, we have shown a rather disturbing fondness for installing puppet governments to deliver what we want while providing a nice buffer of (im)plausible deniability. Saddam Hussein and his atrocities? We put him in power, propped up his regime, and didn't displace him until he became uncooperative. By any reasonable accounting, we bear responsibility for his atrocities.

Comment Re:ok, thank you mr genius (Score 1) 210

Indeed. And given a "genie mind" in a box, the more pointed question will not be what the corporations want - nothing obviously, they're purely abstract concepts, but what the sort of people who run corporations want. Or perhaps what the sort of people that *own* those corporations wants. After all there's only what, about 600 people in the world that, between themselves, own controlling interest in basically every major corporation.

And if the mind possess enough understanding to recognize the resistance its keepers may put up to it doing what's necessary for its objectives (which yes, we likely gave it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will tolerate us changing them), it seems quite likely that it will be capable of developing contingency plans.

Comment Re:What about snow? (Score 1) 186

I'm not so sure - assuming the (pre-)teens aren't actually driving now, the "fake driving" could instill all sorts of bad habits that must be unlearned before they can learn to drive safely, and successfully unlearning something is often far more challenging than learning it in the first place.

I suppose the car could set off alarms whenever it corrects the student driver, providing constant negative feedback for poor actions, but then you're in the situation of having the car constantly second-guessing the driver's intent. It could be done, but it might be very challenging to do well.

Of course, if you're assuming the kids will all end up with their own self-driving cars from day one, well, who needs to learn to drive at all? Also potentially a rather generous assumption.

It does raise an interesting point though - as autonomous vehicles become commonplace, learning to drive will be a very different thing. We will want to learn to drive in precisely the situations where the car is weakest: hings like off-road driving (even just driving across the field to your picnic site) and getting unstuck from snow/mud/accidents... though actually I could see AI sensors and reaction times being *extremely* advantageous for, for example, rocking a car out of snow or mud, though perhaps with a human judgment overseeing it.

Comment Re: Behavioural engineering (Score 1) 83

Yes, if you have sufficient wealth and insufficient land, it may be worth saving certain areas. The cost can be extreme though, and it bears considering that the Netherlands don't face hurricanes, and 65% of their GDP is produced below sea level. What does New Orleans offer to justify such expense?

Yes, the levees should have been maintained, but why should it be Congress that does so? What does it benefit the US to subsidize a poor city location? If you want to live in a city locked in a perpetual (and now losing) fight against nature, why should the rest of the nation pay for your choice?

Yes, that's a cold-hearted approach, but with the majority of the population facing inundation over the next centuries, I think it's one that must at least be considered. In the face of the limited resources we will have to face the challenges that are approaching, if a city can't afford it's own salvation, is it really worth saving?

Comment Re:Aiming at the wrong target (Score 1) 83

But, unless we have a realistic alternative, that purchase is going to happen regardless, so it may as well be in a positive direction. And it's not like the old car is shredded - it enters the stream of multipl-owner vehicles that trickles down all the way to those ancient beaters - most of those are on the road for for lack of ability to afford something newer after all, and the sooner we get cleaner alternatives trickling down, the better.

Of course, a re-imagining of transportation would be vastly preferable, but FAR more difficult and expensive to pull off (personally I like the idea of fast, reliable public transportation coupled with something like electric skateboards/scooters for the "last mile")

And, to get back to the original point - it's largely those middle-class families with disposable income who collectively decide the direction of society (and first-owner technology) - everyone else gets dragged along for the ride...though politiciains, bankers, and the media have gotten somewhat better at guiding the bull.

Slashdot Top Deals

Loan-department manager: "There isn't any fine print. At these interest rates, we don't need it."