I, for one, would rather be shot or blown up than live under a government that can 100% guarantee my safety.
So would you rather be shot or blown up than have governments (say) issue passports and check incoming passengers' details against known terrorists? or have a police force?
It's not a black or white thing, because while obviously no government can 100% guarantee your safety, they can do certain things which increase it greatly.
I believe even libertarians admit the need for a country to have a military, for instance.
... to snoop on the real terrorists.
Does he really think that terrorists are going to send each other emails, tweets or Facebook messages expressing their intentions?
The problem is that if the terrorists do send each other a plain text message saying "tomorrow we bomb X" or whatever, and the authorities do not intercept and act on it, everyone will accuse them of incompetence when the bomb goes off at X.
You are another person making the assumption that there is something magically different about the tech industry compared to the law, medicine, finance or whatever. where women manage to have careers even if they do have children.
Other professional jobs require constant learning and change too, so it's not just that.
Most women just aren't attracted to careers in technology. Why is that?
Is it because the men in technology companies are all such sexual Tyrannosaurs that women realise they'd just be spending all day masturbating in their cubicles due to the testosterone soup they'd be breathing?
I am surprised that you can't differentiate between the late adolescent showing off of a bunch of over-priveleged virgin geeks, and the self discipline needed to succeed in adult, professional life.
I am also surprised that this is apparently accepted behaviour in US colleges. No wonder an undergraduate degree is seen as virtually worthless there.
The mindset that "girls would make bad programmers...
Nobody is saying that. What they are saying is that girls are less interested, not less capable.
Ah, that's quite clever, as you can then say that it's all just down to personal preferences, so therefore there's no more problem than if a lot of IT/CS people happen to like coffee instead of tea, or something.
I guess it is outside the bounds of consideration that IT and tech interests in general might just be different between the sexes (genetic wiring) and even with races/ethinc lines due to culture they're raised in.
Even given that there are such things as fundamental differences due to sex or race/ethnicity/culture, why should "IT and tech interests in general" be different from any other field of human experience?
If you can have highly successful black lawyers and politicians, and women doctors and professors, what's so special about tech work?
No, I was proposing that your statement was completely ridiculous. Hopefully now you see why.
I think someone who takes an obvious analogy as intending to mean that stars literally are tended by cosmic cowherds is far beyond any conception of the ridiculous.
As an atheist I'm all for abolishing the public aspect of religions entirely, but it is sheer hypocrisy for a Christian to say the same about Islam.
They are both outmoded philosophical systems, which should by now be viewed in the same way as astrology or the gods of Ancient Egypt.
The fact that there are many sensible Christians, as well as sensible Muslims, just goes to show that religion is acceptable when not taken literally, or seriously.
Not that you made any such claim, but those are all Old Testament scriptures, thus for Christians they have been overridden by the teachings of Jesus Christ. None of those apply to Christianity, which makes sense, as you don't see Christians running around trying to enforce anything of the sort.
So why haven't you dumped the ridiculous creation myths in Genesis as well?
I would recommend Iain M. Banks' Culture series where a post-scarcity society turns economics on its head.
Well it doesn't so much turn economics on its head, as make it disappear entirely. Which is fine, as most sane people find economics analogous to going to the toilet: necessary, but uninteresting.
Your mistake is assuming that everyone makes rational choices.
It is a tenet of the Randian libertarianism that is the prevailing political ideology on slashdot that everything is based on rational economic choice, with "rational" meaning "purely self-centred and selfish".
There's a big difference between making irrational choices and presenting a future world where the systems simply wouldn't work as described. From a writing standpoint, you want your readers immersed in the story, not distracted by inconsistencies that suggest the world as described was not given much thought.
There are very few science fiction works which don't contain something obviously unrealistic. Anything involving time travel, FTL travel,or instantaneous matter transfer, for example is far more fundamentally "wrong" than a book where the socio-economic system is a bit weird.
Just as one shouldn't prognosticate by extrapolating current rates of progress into the future, neither should one assume that progress will come to a screeching halt and extrapolate into the future by using a horizontal line. Is hypersonic transport impractical today? Yes. Will it become practical in the future? I'm inclined to disagree with TFA and think it will become affordable.
By that argument, anything technically possible will eventually become economically practical.
Does everything currently in existence make money? Of course not, so why should it in the future?
Although it's worse since 9/11, it has been a long time (at least in Europe) since you could turn up at an airport, buy a ticket and hop onto a plane like you would a train.
That ranks up with "and that's how I had my most recent foursome with blonde cheerleader triplets" in my list of phrases I never expected to read on slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
I suggest Cwmbran, in Wales.
I dislike murdering psychotic religious fanatics as much as the next man, but...WALES?
We're supposed to be better than the terrorists.
I, for one, would rather be shot or blown up than live under a government that can 100% guarantee my safety.
So would you rather be shot or blown up than have governments (say) issue passports and check incoming passengers' details against known terrorists? or have a police force?
It's not a black or white thing, because while obviously no government can 100% guarantee your safety, they can do certain things which increase it greatly.
I believe even libertarians admit the need for a country to have a military, for instance.
Good point.
Bad point.
Counter point.
Numberwang!
... to snoop on the real terrorists.
Does he really think that terrorists are going to send each other emails, tweets or Facebook messages expressing their intentions?
The problem is that if the terrorists do send each other a plain text message saying "tomorrow we bomb X" or whatever, and the authorities do not intercept and act on it, everyone will accuse them of incompetence when the bomb goes off at X.
Remember that American aid worker Peter Kassig that got his head cut off?
He has converted in Islam but that still didn't prevent them barbarians from cutting his head off
Surely this shows that it is not Islam itself that is the problem?
It is not "political correctness" to differentiate between ordinary Muslims and terrorists who are Muslims.
Other professional jobs require constant learning and change too, so it's not just that.
Most women just aren't attracted to careers in technology. Why is that?
Is it because the men in technology companies are all such sexual Tyrannosaurs that women realise they'd just be spending all day masturbating in their cubicles due to the testosterone soup they'd be breathing?
I am also surprised that this is apparently accepted behaviour in US colleges. No wonder an undergraduate degree is seen as virtually worthless there.
The mindset that "girls would make bad programmers ...
Nobody is saying that. What they are saying is that girls are less interested, not less capable.
Ah, that's quite clever, as you can then say that it's all just down to personal preferences, so therefore there's no more problem than if a lot of IT/CS people happen to like coffee instead of tea, or something.
You can probably even convince yourself it's true
I guess it is outside the bounds of consideration that IT and tech interests in general might just be different between the sexes (genetic wiring) and even with races/ethinc lines due to culture they're raised in.
Even given that there are such things as fundamental differences due to sex or race/ethnicity/culture, why should "IT and tech interests in general" be different from any other field of human experience?
If you can have highly successful black lawyers and politicians, and women doctors and professors, what's so special about tech work?
No, I was proposing that your statement was completely ridiculous. Hopefully now you see why.
I think someone who takes an obvious analogy as intending to mean that stars literally are tended by cosmic cowherds is far beyond any conception of the ridiculous.
Frankly, I am disappointed you didn't include a "Uranus" joke there, as I could have responded with the "Urectum" quote from Futurama.
I prefer "stellaraptor"?
what I do know is that Christians who use violence to spread their views can not be considered Christians
And normal, moderate Muslims would say that ISIL and the rest can not be considered Muslims.
They are both outmoded philosophical systems, which should by now be viewed in the same way as astrology or the gods of Ancient Egypt.
The fact that there are many sensible Christians, as well as sensible Muslims, just goes to show that religion is acceptable when not taken literally, or seriously.
Not that you made any such claim, but those are all Old Testament scriptures, thus for Christians they have been overridden by the teachings of Jesus Christ. None of those apply to Christianity, which makes sense, as you don't see Christians running around trying to enforce anything of the sort.
So why haven't you dumped the ridiculous creation myths in Genesis as well?
Counter-revolutionaries and capitalists did, in fact, exist.
I would recommend Iain M. Banks' Culture series where a post-scarcity society turns economics on its head.
Well it doesn't so much turn economics on its head, as make it disappear entirely. Which is fine, as most sane people find economics analogous to going to the toilet: necessary, but uninteresting.
Your mistake is assuming that everyone makes rational choices.
It is a tenet of the Randian libertarianism that is the prevailing political ideology on slashdot that everything is based on rational economic choice, with "rational" meaning "purely self-centred and selfish".
There's a big difference between making irrational choices and presenting a future world where the systems simply wouldn't work as described. From a writing standpoint, you want your readers immersed in the story, not distracted by inconsistencies that suggest the world as described was not given much thought.
There are very few science fiction works which don't contain something obviously unrealistic. Anything involving time travel, FTL travel,or instantaneous matter transfer, for example is far more fundamentally "wrong" than a book where the socio-economic system is a bit weird.
Providing people with celebrities is NOT punishment.
You've obviously never seen Big Brother.
Reading the Hunger Ganes and expecting economic plausibility is like reading Starship Troopers to pick up knitting advice.
Just as one shouldn't prognosticate by extrapolating current rates of progress into the future, neither should one assume that progress will come to a screeching halt and extrapolate into the future by using a horizontal line. Is hypersonic transport impractical today? Yes. Will it become practical in the future? I'm inclined to disagree with TFA and think it will become affordable.
By that argument, anything technically possible will eventually become economically practical.
Does everything currently in existence make money? Of course not, so why should it in the future?
Although it's worse since 9/11, it has been a long time (at least in Europe) since you could turn up at an airport, buy a ticket and hop onto a plane like you would a train.
Last time I crossed the Atlantic by ocean liner
That ranks up with "and that's how I had my most recent foursome with blonde cheerleader triplets" in my list of phrases I never expected to read on slashdot.