Please sign in and post this with your account. If there is to be any hope of the site operators taking action to contain his trolling, enough of us need to complain, and Anonymous Cowards don't count.
Please sign in and post this with your account. The site operators won't take action to contain his trolling unless enough of us complain, and Anonymous Cowards don't count.
As soon as I saw the word "nuclear" in the subject, I knew who the submitter was.
For those new around here, mdsolar is Slashdot's long-time anti-unclear troll, so I'm posting this as a forewarning to you. His posting history shows he regularly contributes anti-nuclear articles, and when he gets told, he typically resorts to personal attacks on those he disagrees with. If you're not interested in going down this path, the best option is just to ignore him. As they say: don't feed the trolls. Now if we could only get the powers-that-be here to ignore his submissions...
It's highly doubtful that anyone can be consistently in Kohlberg's stage 5 (and certainly no one is in 6). It just runs counter to what we know from evolutionary psychology, as well as common sense. Often people try to make the argument that full-blown altruism exists and has been able to arise because evolution can happen on the scale of groups rather than just individuals (or, more precisely, individual genes), but these theories have never played out outside simplified computer models. The selection pressure even in as social species as humans is overwhelmingly biased towards individuals and closest relations, falling off very quickly with genealogical separation. While in modern society individuals have far more vast influences, potentially affecting much of the world, this has only been the case for a time multiple orders of magnitude shorter than what is needed to see any effect on our biology. Indeed, there remains a significant source of selection pressure against the top two of Kohlberg's levels: altruism leaves its adherents very vulnerable to exploit by selfish individuals (the flip side of this coin is that psychopathy is an effective strategy as long as the frequency of its occurrence is low enough, which explains the fairly consistent 1% rate; this is analogous to the sexual selection pressures that result in a minority of "alpha" males). A discussion about these issues in the context of Kohlberg's stages can be found at http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty...
Hot fusion is also going nowhere until anuetronic fusion becomes practical (pro tip: it's quite a bit harder to do) because the fast neutrons eventually destroy every known material used as the plasma-facing "first" wall. That's something the ITER fanboys are not telling you (for obvious reasons).
The only possible advantage is that they are lightest when they require the most power - take-off.
This is patently false, as maximum landing weight for all commercial aircraft is lower than maximum takeoff weight. Next time don't post about things you obviously known nothing about!
Never mind Balsillie. Michael Geist wrote a whole series of very detailed arguments as to why the TPP is an absolutely terrible deal for Canada, with many arguments applying to the rest of the suckers^H^H^H^H^Hpartners who sold out their citizens. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/?s=...
Way to miss the point: the issue isn't the offended being able to express that they're offended; it's that many of them do so in support of their arguments that free speech should be further restrained, and their influence with politicians -- as well as the politicians' natural willingness to appease those who would reelect them, not to mention the affordance it gives them for further tools of control. While courts remain a vanguard against tyranny of the majority in principle, in practice over long periods the system yields to pressure, as judges are replaced with members of newer generations who value freedom less, having taken it for granted all of their lives. This only seems to reset when totalitarianism fully settles in and reminds people's sensibilities of what was lost. Unfortunately, in modern times the system is too well supported by technology, marketing, and a ton of other corrective feedback loops to be vulnerable to a revolution, so giving in to the trend of thought-policing SJWs this time will spell the end of freedom until the end of history.
I am very much against judging others on traits beyond their control or that they were literally born into. Race, gender, a degree of financial means, a degree of physical health, sexual orientation. Those things are either entirely beyond the control of the individual or are initial conditions that can be very, very difficult to change.
Agreed.
On the other hand, I do not see a problem judging someone based on the choices that they've made, the company they keep, or their behavior, as all of those are, to a large extent, within the control of the individual.
I'm going to dispute this. Unless one takes a religious stance or assumes panpsychism, the choices we make are ultimately direct consequences of the physical laws of the universe. It's all luck, including the mind you're born with and all the factors that influence it thereafter. Whether you take a deterministic interpretation of QM (Bohmian mechanics, some flavors of many-worlds, Mohrhoff's interpretation) or a stochastic one (most everything else), there's no choice that doesn't result directly from what-happened-before plus possible quantum non-determinism thrown in (and a random roll of the quantum dice is not free will in any sense whatsoever). And you claim to assign real moral responsibility for choices that are only yours in an illusory way?
Surveys show less than 14% of philosophers believe in free will in the classic sense. Unforunately, many of the rest have fallen for the slight-of-hand called compatibilism (a sort of "free will" without actual free choice) in order to avoid the inescapable conclusion that, as a result of physicalism, moral responsibility cannot be assigned (the arguments against compatibilism come from many directions, but the most robust ones are from physics).
This isn't just an academic discussion; the consequences are tremendous. Belief in free will is one of the leading causes of social and economic inequality, because those who have been lucky with the choices nature made for us, yet believe they were our own, blame the less lucky ones instead of realizing they simply lost the roll of the dice (or were predetermined to end up that way, if you're a determinist). That prevents making sufficient effort to correct said inequality. This is all covered in great detail in James B. Miles book The Free Will Delusion (which is confusingly of the same name as an equally good work by the well-known neuroscientist Sam Harris) and related papers he's published. Of course, this is Slashdot and tl;dr applies, so here's a quick video overview: http://www.europeanceo.com/vid...
And worse, many of them then they turn around and blame all society's ills on the baby boomers and their legacy (and I say this as one of the younger generations, not a boomer myself).
http://imagesmtv-a.akamaihd.ne...
In the mutually exclusive case, some percentage of the time, a disagreeing user is going to reply instead of abusively moderating. That is a net benefit.
I vote against this. Trolls will simply use sock puppets, and there are also other reasons people may wish to make certain posts anonymously, such as self-censorship due to where one is working, etc.
I think parent is referring to Strict Transport Security (HSTS), which is pretty trivial to configure on a web server (HTTPS Everywhere is a browser feature).
Slashdot Mirror
Please sign in and post this with your account. If there is to be any hope of the site operators taking action to contain his trolling, enough of us need to complain, and Anonymous Cowards don't count.
Please sign in and post this with your account. The site operators won't take action to contain his trolling unless enough of us complain, and Anonymous Cowards don't count.
As soon as I saw the word "nuclear" in the subject, I knew who the submitter was.
For those new around here, mdsolar is Slashdot's long-time anti-unclear troll, so I'm posting this as a forewarning to you. His posting history shows he regularly contributes anti-nuclear articles, and when he gets told, he typically resorts to personal attacks on those he disagrees with. If you're not interested in going down this path, the best option is just to ignore him. As they say: don't feed the trolls. Now if we could only get the powers-that-be here to ignore his submissions...
It doesn't matter if they can make it. Forcing them to make it is against the 13th Amendment.
It's highly doubtful that anyone can be consistently in Kohlberg's stage 5 (and certainly no one is in 6). It just runs counter to what we know from evolutionary psychology, as well as common sense. Often people try to make the argument that full-blown altruism exists and has been able to arise because evolution can happen on the scale of groups rather than just individuals (or, more precisely, individual genes), but these theories have never played out outside simplified computer models. The selection pressure even in as social species as humans is overwhelmingly biased towards individuals and closest relations, falling off very quickly with genealogical separation. While in modern society individuals have far more vast influences, potentially affecting much of the world, this has only been the case for a time multiple orders of magnitude shorter than what is needed to see any effect on our biology. Indeed, there remains a significant source of selection pressure against the top two of Kohlberg's levels: altruism leaves its adherents very vulnerable to exploit by selfish individuals (the flip side of this coin is that psychopathy is an effective strategy as long as the frequency of its occurrence is low enough, which explains the fairly consistent 1% rate; this is analogous to the sexual selection pressures that result in a minority of "alpha" males). A discussion about these issues in the context of Kohlberg's stages can be found at http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty...
anuetronic
Typo; it should say "aneutronic".
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/386-IEEE-brief-DeChiaro-9-2015-pdf
Dear reader, I quit reading this document as soon as I saw convicted fraudster and scam artist Andrea Rossi cited by it unironically -- as you should as well.
Hot fusion is also going nowhere until anuetronic fusion becomes practical (pro tip: it's quite a bit harder to do) because the fast neutrons eventually destroy every known material used as the plasma-facing "first" wall. That's something the ITER fanboys are not telling you (for obvious reasons).
Your post can be summarized into the following: "I don't have any counter-arguments, but I'm going to disagree anyway, because [wishful thinking]"
The only possible advantage is that they are lightest when they require the most power - take-off.
This is patently false, as maximum landing weight for all commercial aircraft is lower than maximum takeoff weight. Next time don't post about things you obviously known nothing about!
Podkletnov device
Podkletnov is a well-known crackpot and scam artists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Mod parent down for promoting crank pseudoscience!
Never mind Balsillie. Michael Geist wrote a whole series of very detailed arguments as to why the TPP is an absolutely terrible deal for Canada, with many arguments applying to the rest of the suckers^H^H^H^H^Hpartners who sold out their citizens. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/?s=...
You mean while Slashdot was owned by Dice?
Now if our new overlords would only do something about user mdsolar's constant anti-nuclear energy shilling here...
So you tried to use an umlaut in the author's name, yet you couldn't be bothered to preserve the em dashes in the text, using hyphens instead...
I don't know how a true liberal would stand for such an encroachment
This is a perfect example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Way to miss the point: the issue isn't the offended being able to express that they're offended; it's that many of them do so in support of their arguments that free speech should be further restrained, and their influence with politicians -- as well as the politicians' natural willingness to appease those who would reelect them, not to mention the affordance it gives them for further tools of control. While courts remain a vanguard against tyranny of the majority in principle, in practice over long periods the system yields to pressure, as judges are replaced with members of newer generations who value freedom less, having taken it for granted all of their lives. This only seems to reset when totalitarianism fully settles in and reminds people's sensibilities of what was lost. Unfortunately, in modern times the system is too well supported by technology, marketing, and a ton of other corrective feedback loops to be vulnerable to a revolution, so giving in to the trend of thought-policing SJWs this time will spell the end of freedom until the end of history.
I am very much against judging others on traits beyond their control or that they were literally born into. Race, gender, a degree of financial means, a degree of physical health, sexual orientation. Those things are either entirely beyond the control of the individual or are initial conditions that can be very, very difficult to change.
Agreed.
On the other hand, I do not see a problem judging someone based on the choices that they've made, the company they keep, or their behavior, as all of those are, to a large extent, within the control of the individual.
I'm going to dispute this. Unless one takes a religious stance or assumes panpsychism, the choices we make are ultimately direct consequences of the physical laws of the universe. It's all luck, including the mind you're born with and all the factors that influence it thereafter. Whether you take a deterministic interpretation of QM (Bohmian mechanics, some flavors of many-worlds, Mohrhoff's interpretation) or a stochastic one (most everything else), there's no choice that doesn't result directly from what-happened-before plus possible quantum non-determinism thrown in (and a random roll of the quantum dice is not free will in any sense whatsoever). And you claim to assign real moral responsibility for choices that are only yours in an illusory way?
Surveys show less than 14% of philosophers believe in free will in the classic sense. Unforunately, many of the rest have fallen for the slight-of-hand called compatibilism (a sort of "free will" without actual free choice) in order to avoid the inescapable conclusion that, as a result of physicalism, moral responsibility cannot be assigned (the arguments against compatibilism come from many directions, but the most robust ones are from physics).
This isn't just an academic discussion; the consequences are tremendous. Belief in free will is one of the leading causes of social and economic inequality, because those who have been lucky with the choices nature made for us, yet believe they were our own, blame the less lucky ones instead of realizing they simply lost the roll of the dice (or were predetermined to end up that way, if you're a determinist). That prevents making sufficient effort to correct said inequality. This is all covered in great detail in James B. Miles book The Free Will Delusion (which is confusingly of the same name as an equally good work by the well-known neuroscientist Sam Harris) and related papers he's published. Of course, this is Slashdot and tl;dr applies, so here's a quick video overview: http://www.europeanceo.com/vid...
And worse, many of them then they turn around and blame all society's ills on the baby boomers and their legacy (and I say this as one of the younger generations, not a boomer myself).
Where are the mods when you need them?
Given your long history of trolling on Slashdot, I'd say there is a lot to defend against.
http://imagesmtv-a.akamaihd.ne... In the mutually exclusive case, some percentage of the time, a disagreeing user is going to reply instead of abusively moderating. That is a net benefit.
Come at me, /b/ro
At best, it forces someone to apply one extra step of using a sockpuppet to mod the discussion they've contributed to.
That's still extra effort that will dissuade most from utilizing the technique.
Agreed. Having more gradations just invites hyperbolic moderation.
I vote against this. Trolls will simply use sock puppets, and there are also other reasons people may wish to make certain posts anonymously, such as self-censorship due to where one is working, etc.
I think parent is referring to Strict Transport Security (HSTS), which is pretty trivial to configure on a web server (HTTPS Everywhere is a browser feature).