Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

What Did You Change Your Mind About in 2007?

Posted by Zonk on Tue Jan 01, 2008 01:41 PM
from the read-dawkins'-it's-awesome dept.
chrisd writes "The Edge 2008 question (with answers) is in. This year, the question is: 'What did you change your mind about and why?'. Answers are featured from scientists as diverse as Richard Dawkins, Simon Baron-Cohen, George Church, David Brin, J. Craig Venter and the Astronomer Royal, Lord Martin Rees, among others. Very interesting to read. For instance, Stewart Brand writes that he now realizes that 'Good old stuff sucks' and Sam Harris has decided that 'Mother Nature is Not Our Friend.' What did Slashdot readers change their minds about in 2007?"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @01:50PM (#21875236)
    Mother Nature is not now, nor has she ever been, looking out for us.

    I would go further and say that, not only is she not looking out for us, but Mother Nature is a bitch.
    • "Mother Nature", AKA the natural laws of the universe, doesn't care about us one way or the other. Mother Nature isn't even aware we exists as Mother Nature is NOT aware of anything. Attributing awareness to 'mother nature' is irrational.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 01 2008, @02:45PM (#21875650)
      Monty Burns: Oh, so Mother Nature needs a favor? Well, maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys. Nature started the fight for survival and now she wants to quit because she's losing? Well, I say "hard cheese"!
      • by wizardforce (1005805) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @02:24PM (#21875502) Journal

        Who are you blaming after all? What is mother nature? I just can't wrap my head around the entity that is blamed here? Are you blaming earth for being so imperfect with all the volcanoes and earthquakes? Are you blaming yourself for continuously degrading the environment thus making it harder for you to live?

        you... need to go outside more.. mother nature she "loves" you, specifically she loves to attempt to kill you at every chance she gets, that's why we develop technology to enforce the restraining order against her.
  • Ron Paul and the war (Score:4, Interesting)

    by argoff (142580) * on Tuesday January 01 2008, @01:57PM (#21875292)
    I changed my mind about the war in Iraq because of Ron Paul. I was always sympathetic to the idea of bringing liberty to those overseas, but it is clear now that the source of liberty is individual choices not government ones. Ron Paul made it clear and final that the war is not helping the freedom of the people over there, and it is obviously not helping the freedom of people over here, and is directly responsible for the rise of a police state mentality in the USA, and is contributing greatly to our ongoing economic collapse. As Ron Paul once said, if we want wars all over the planet and want the government babying people from cradle to grave - then we must have an IRS and massive debt. But if we want freedom and liberty, then yes we can get rid of them.
    • by Scrameustache (459504) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @03:01PM (#21875786) Homepage Journal

      I was always sympathetic to the idea of bringing liberty to those overseas
      Which is why that emotionally potent oversimplification was used.
      Not because it applied, but because it would make you agree.

      Why are they killing people? For liberty! We like liberty, so it makes it okay to kill people: it's for something we like!

    • In early 2007 I thought I might be able to vote for Ron Paul against certain Democrats if it came down to that (unlikely).
      After learning more about Dr. Paul: that he hasn't felt the need to educate himself about the scientific facts about evolution and rejects it, though wasn't willing to raise his hand during the televised debate where the candidates were asked that question; that he calls abortion "Murder"; and, most critically, that he wants to remove the ability of the federal government to intervene in violations of chuch/state separation.
      If the founding fathers got nothing else right with our country, they got the separation of church and state right. Integrating religion and state power is a sure path to tyranny.
      • by MightyMartian (840721) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @04:41PM (#21876542) Journal
        The Neo-cons have a rather odd view of the world and of the nature of power. They are the political equivalents of the economists of the 1920s; both essentially asserting that the old rules don't apply. In the 1920s everyone assumed that the Capitalist boom-bust cycle was over for good, that it was going to party days forever. The Neo-cons felt the same way about American power after the fall of the USSR, that the US was a hyperpower that could have nearly unlimited global influence. Iraq has demonstrated that the US is no different than Rome was in its day, a mighty military power, but not so mighty that it can't get overextended or get itself into military fiascos that have very direct political consequences.

        The US now faces a 21st century with a rising China (something that clever folks have in fact been predicting for a couple of centuries) and Russia recovering from its wounds and taking back its position as a pre-eminent Old World power. Europe, despite a lot of roadbumps, is making a growing, vibrant political union, and I suspect in the long term it will become a Neo-Rome, controlling the Mediterranean.

        The Neo-cons have weakened the United States at the very moment when it should have been mustering its resources to prepare for the new order. They thought they can short-circuit the historical trends, and by flying the American flag on distant lands and bringing democracy that they would retain uncontested pre-eminence. They seriously misread the reconstruction of Japan and thought that it could be a roadmap for the Middle East, to safeguard oil supplies and put in friendly powers.

        It's time for Americans to start reading their history, to start understanding that the United States is not some blessed land, but is an empire like any, and that it is just as vulnerable as any in history.
          • by The One and Only (691315) * <phil@philwelch.net> on Tuesday January 01 2008, @07:27PM (#21877662) Homepage

            First point: secularism is no guarantee of liberty. Religion is no guarantee of tyranny... I remind you that this country was first settled by Puritans.

            Your point is valid, but your example is not. Plymouth was the second successful colony settled by the British--the first was Jamestown, Virginia. Jamestown was settled by migrant Englishmen looking to simply settle and conquer the New World. And if "this country" includes Florida, then the Spanish colony at St. Augustine, Florida predates both by half a century. But in a purely geographic sense, "this country" was settled by Native Americans centuries before any white man set foot upon it.

            Furthermore, the Puritans were tyrannical--which is why Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson, and other people who fell out of favor with the Puritans settled Rhode Island. In fact, the Puritans were the perpetrators of the witch hunts.

  • by Ranger (1783) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @01:58PM (#21875314) Homepage
    I know everyone is complaining that oil and gas is way too expensive. They are wrong. I used to think the same way. I saw a nice chart showing gasoline prices adjusted for inflation over a period of about eighty years [blogspot.com]. You know what? It really hasn't changed that much. It was still higher in 1981 than it is now. What has changed is a decrease in our earning power.

    Proof that gasoline is still too cheap: I still see tons of Hummers, Expeditions, Navigators, Armadas, Sequoias and other mondo SUVs (aka Urban Assault Vehicles) on the road.
      • by AhtirTano (638534) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @04:01PM (#21876204)
        A couple interesting observations about those charts.
        1. From 1947-1977 (the first half covered) the mean household income (adjusted for inflation) goes from $26,322 to $51,925. That's almost double the household income. From 1978-2005 (the second half), it goes from $54,764 to $73,304. That's a little more than a 1/3 increase. So the rate at which our income is increasing has dropped drastically.
        2. The further back along the time-line you go, the fewer two income households there are. So the doubling of earning power in the first 30 years of the chart was decreasingly accomplished by single individuals making more. The lesser increase in earning power in the second half is increasingly accomplished by pairs.
  • Linux (Score:4, Interesting)

    by calebt3 (1098475) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @01:59PM (#21875322)
    I switched from XP to openSuSE in March, and decided it was too hard to work with, to the point that I pined for Window's familiarity. Temporarily lacking an XP CD, I downloaded Ubuntu as a stopgap. And decided I didn't need that XP CD after all.
  • Windows XP (Score:5, Funny)

    by m50d (797211) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @01:59PM (#21875326) Homepage Journal
    it's not *all* that bad, actually
  • Flying cars (Score:5, Funny)

    by Harmonious Botch (921977) * on Tuesday January 01 2008, @02:01PM (#21875340) Homepage Journal
    I finally realized that I was never going to have a flying car.
  • by HW_Hack (1031622) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @02:25PM (#21875508)
    can effect any type of meaningful change.

    Healthcare reform, acting on global warming, tax reform, ending a meaningless war, supporting the middle class, fighting terrorism at its roots ( in the Madrases ) and local Muslim populations (versus invading random countries like Iraq or Iran), energy independence ........ on and on

    Since a teenager I've been at least tuned into the issues / politics - and would get wrapped up with one candidate or another .... now in my 50's I see that this just a bunch of horse-shit. I'll still vote (as I have since I turned 18) .... but to invest any time, money, or emotion in the political process ----- fuck that shit.
  • religion (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wizardforce (1005805) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @02:34PM (#21875568) Journal
    I changed my mind about religion, ironically it was because I started going back to church that I realized I didn't believe any of it.
  • Emotion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by otomo_1001 (22925) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @03:27PM (#21876000)
    This will probably be out of place here amongst the /. crowd. But I met the absolutely most beautiful woman on the planet, inside much more so than outside this year. And the whole experience changed me and my mind on the value of emotion in general. I am still dealing with the fallout from realizing I have been an emotional equivalent to a black hole up until now.

    It used to be hard to say stuff like that, even to myself. But not any more, personal growth is always a good thing to achieve. And no she wasn't a girlfriend or anything like that either before anyone asks.

    Oh and tv. It is now almost entirely out of my life, to be replaced by real life things like skydiving and adrenaline rushes. :)
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 01 2008, @02:12PM (#21875410)

      In a simple ceremony I married my sweet heart with whom we'd been together for 8 years.
      Okay, and to keep this on topic, you've now changed your mind? Well, happy new year :)
    • by east coast (590680) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @02:19PM (#21875468)
      Congratulations on your promotion to management.
    • by sethstorm (512897) * on Tuesday January 01 2008, @02:32PM (#21875556) Homepage

      An additional benefit is that it has a rather sobering effect on local know-it-all's when they see that their work is in fact inferior to what we can get from a third world sourcing partner.
      Exception, not rule. The locals will end up cleaning after the large amounts of mistakes.

      It has a disciplining effect on the entire organization since the punishment for immaturity is harsh and tangible.

      After this sort of ego bruising they are more ready to accept modern and mature practices.
      Play $DEITY somewhere else, not with workers. If one has to add fear (by offshoring) over their heads to drive a point, something is terribly wrong.

      You're part of what makes people hate offshoring, you use it for fear, and not productivity.
    • by plasmacutter (901737) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @02:33PM (#21875558) Journal
      well, not willing to, more like "forced to" accept triple the workload they used to, resulting in fatigue around which an entire industry of pharmaceuticals arose to keep them up with stims rather than labor regulations to keep offshoring down so they can live healthy lives which involve rest and the possibility of actually speaking with and raising their kids.

      and of course they have to accept the erosion of their middle class status to the point they will never ever retire and can't ever afford a house.. "as the rents go up, and job opportunities go down"

      yes i'm sure our descent into third world status will "only" harm the "immature"

      and where do you get off declaring what is and is not mature? did it ever occur to you that you may be the one who isn't mature. Usually the ones who believe themselves far enough above others to pronounce judgment are themselves the fools.

      But yeah, go ahead and support the destruction of the middle class for your twisted sense of self righteousness regarding other people's maturity.
      • by maeka (518272) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @03:26PM (#21875998) Journal

        But yeah, go ahead and support the destruction of the middle class for your twisted sense of self righteousness regarding other people's maturity.

        I would argue it is not destroying the middle class, so much as moving the middle class.
        Welcome to the global economy.
        There is going to be a painful transition period while the former third world achieves what they have not had for so long.
        Blame the old status-quo on imperialism, blame it on racism, blame it on whatever you want. Regardless, the world is becoming an increasingly level playing field - finally.

              • by kklein (900361) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @09:22PM (#21878346)

                I'm an academic, and the single biggest reason is that I'm a workaholic and if the place didn't almost shut down for 4 months of the year, I'd work myself to an early grave. As it is now, though, I work my ass off 8 months of the year, and 4 months of the year I'm blessed and cursed to be able to get almost nothing done (well, nothing that requires the organization). It's been very good for my health and mental well-being, if not necessarily for my wallet.

                Over the last summer break, I spent about a week staying with my friends who work at a major IT company as developers. I saw their lives, and was envious. They make a lot more money, they come home earlier, and it is virtually impossible for them to work at home, so they don't. "Damn," I thought, "I really did pick the wrong career." But then I noticed something: I was staying at their house in a different country from where I live for a week, and that was just one week out of about 7 or 8 in a row that I didn't have to report to work. I was still getting some things done on the laptop, but that had much more to do with my workaholic nature than necessity. "Damn," I thought, "maybe I picked the right career after all."

                The point I'm trying to make is that you are ultimately in control of your time. You are. Really. It's your time. Your life. If you feel that you are losing it to a company, and the money isn't worth it, you need to change gears. It's not their fault. It's your fault for doing it.

                Now, this decision will most certainly result in a decrease in income. It may mean you aren't buying a house (if you're in the US, this is a terrible time to buy anyway--wait for the market to really crash first--and if you already bought, you have my sympathy), it may mean that vacation is usually spent on the couch instead of on the beach. It may mean you will be hanging on to your old car and just keeping it going until it dies. It means you don't get the "American Dream" kind of life people in my generation seem to somehow feel is necessary. BUT, you will get your life back.

                Depending on who you are as a person--whether you value money or time more--this may or may not be a viable lifestyle choice. But the choice is there.

                Finally, however, I want to address this idea that we work harder than our elders. I think that is really only the case on Leave it to Beaver. In talking to my parents, both of their parents worked. Mom got home earlier than Dad (schoolteachers in both cases), but Dad (a lawyer on one side and a shopkeeper on the other) got home late. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but I really think that we have too rosy a view of our elders' lives. In my own parents' case, they run a business that is attached to the house, so they were around a lot, but were also usually working. When my dad had to go out, which was/is almost every day, he didn't come home until late (8-9). He also gets called out to truck wrecks (independent insurance adjuster specializing in the hard stuff that companies hire a third party to handle) in the middle of the night fairly regularly, and might not come shuffling back home for 18 hours, after dealing with cops, insurance companies, grief-ridden truck drivers, and the survivors of the family they just killed. That being said, there are down periods with little work and no money, and I grew up being pulled out of school during those periods to drive around the country and learn things. My parents basically made the same choice I did. Time is more important than money.

                Further, think of the Depression generation! They didn't work because there wasn't any. Lots of time, but absolutely no money. If they did work, it was long hours in a dusty field. And before that? The agriculture- and manufacturing-based economy. The ag business is still crazy hours (grew up in a little town--had lots of friends who were farm kids and grew up working), and the only reason manufacturing went to 8 hours a day is that in the 20s factories were literally working people to deat

      • by meringuoid (568297) on Tuesday January 01 2008, @03:17PM (#21875910)
        Barack's a Muslim

        No he isn't. A quick search reveals that he is a member of something called the United Church of Christ. This does not appear to be a Muslim denomination: the clue's in the word 'Christ'.