Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Demand More (Score 0, Troll) 665

What alternative does the artist have in selling her music? It sucks making pennies, but would she be otherwise selling her music in concert, on CDs, etc.?

The alternative is to switch to a job that actually pays money. Frankly, she should quit her whining. A cellist? I'm sorry, but she's lucky to be making any money at all. I didn't even know you COULD make money as a cellist. Nobody is going to pay money to listen to a cellist at a concert, or buy her CD. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but in this world, you can't always do what your heart desires and also make a living wage off it. A few lucky ones do, but most of us make compromises in our career choice in order to pay the bills.

Comment Re:Provoking (Score 3, Informative) 1130

"Basically tanks can't see very well, can only shoot in one direction (and slowly) and are remarkably fragile other than frontal armor hits"

As a former Airborne Rifle Squad Leader in the 82nd, and former Bradley Master Gunner in the 1st CAV, I can assure you that this hasn't been the case in the last 30 or more years.

1. American tanks have an advantage in weapon range (commonly called standoff) over Infantry units. It's difficult to kill a tank if it can park and take potshots at you beyond your ability to effectively return fire.

2. They each have a TTS (tank thermal sight) that can display images based on a single degree of temperature difference, and combat as an infantrymen has a tendency to dramatically raise body temperature so that you literally glow in their sights.

3. The tank commander and gunner each have an independently operated sight, and the commander can shift and designate a new target while the gunner is still engaging the old target.

4. They can travel easily over moderate (not pristine) terrain at speeds greater than 45 MPH.

"Combined arms only works if... its combined... "

Yes. That also applies to the infantry.

So here's a thought. Go spend two or three hours walking around your local hardware store collecting the items you will need to kill (or at least render ineffective) an M1 Abrahms. Then figure out how you'll kill the other 100+ M1's that are right behind it.

Good luck, pal.

Nobody in their right mind would attack a tank head-on. The M1 has TERRIBLE fuel efficiency. It eats 1.7 gallons per mile, 10 gallons to start up and 10 gallons per hour idling. You attack the logistics of the tank - its supply convoys.

100 abrams? The US is a big country, with thousands of cities. We don't have enough M1s to put 100 M1s in every city and every point of conflict. On major battle fronts, sure. But we're not talking about a war between nations, we're talking about civil war. And you'd be naive to think that every tank platoon, with families and friends are going to all fight for the same side.

Comment Re:We need gas control! (Score 2) 1591

if you outlaw guns, crazy people will still find ways to kill other people, and in mass numbers.

That would explain the improvised bomb attacks that happen almost monthly in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany...

Don't forget Israel. No improvised bomb attacks there.

Violence is largely an socio-economic symptom. The more poor and oppressed a society, the more violence will occur. The US has far worse income inequality than the UK, Canada, Australia and Germany. The US has more violent EVERYTHING, not just guns, than those countries, because there is simply more poverty here.

All those COP reality shows don't happen in the Hamptons. They happen in Compton.

Comment Re:We need gas control! (Score 1) 1591

You walk around terrified of being attacked and justify gun ownership on the 0.00001% chance that it might actually protect you some day.

Do you know what would make you much, much safer? Wearing a helmet every waking minute. You're risk of a head injury far, far outweighs your risk of being a victim of random violence (by humans or by... errrr... bobcats). So why don't you? That's right, because it doesn't compensate for your small dick (both metaphorical and, likely, actual). The solution, coward, is not to prepare yourself for the minute chance that you'll be the victim of random violence - it's to walk through life like a fucking man, unafraid. And guess what, then there'll be one more person in this world civilized enough not to turn to violence and weapons as a solution, and you just made the world a better fucking place.

You're a coward... so you'll never get it though.

Anonymous Coward calls someone a coward.

Comment Re:We need gas control! (Score 1) 1591

Of course there are other factors. But regulation of gun ownership is one of them, and regulation of gun types allowed for private use is another.

Most countries with high gun ownership rates and low murder rates tend to have hunting rifles, not assault weapons. They also have extensive systems that work to prevent guns from coming into the wrong hands.

And yet assault rifles constitute a tiny portion of gun violence. Even in the US, arguably the highest ownership of assault rifles in the world, has less than 1% of gun violence committed with assault rifles.

I have yet to hear a credible counter-argument to MY reason for owning one: LA Riots. During the LA riots, the police force abandoned entire neighborhoods, particularly Koreatown, among many others. Korean homeowners and storeowners were forced to defend their property and lives on their own...many using assault rifles. I hope that never happens to me, but it CAN. And if it does, yeah, I want the most efficient killing weapon available to defend myself against a much more populous, lawless, armed mob.

If you can magically guarantee that civil unrest + police abandonment can never, ever happen again in the US, then I'll turn in my ar-15 right now. Otherwise, please don't ban something that has no effect on actual gun violence just to make YOURSELF feel better.

Comment Re:Good Advice (Score 2) 316

Even places that do have paid sick leave, its rationed. So I will make a decision, each time I'm sort of sick, whether or not its worth it to use one of my 5 sick days, or whether I think I'll get REALLY sick in the future and should save for that day.

Employers need to actively encourage/have contingency plans for sick people. Especially for office workers, to have a working telecommuting policy/system in place so that a person can not only easily work from home on a mildly sick day, but be encouraged to work from home and still be productive without infecting others.

Comment Re:sigh (Score 3, Insightful) 620

The police have been terrified ever since Rodney King was filmed getting his beating.

Let's not forget, today's police are not Andy Griffith. Their job can be dangerous, and they're only human. That doesn't mean they have a right to privacy in their work. It doesn't mean they can violate their use of force policies because no one is watching. People are watching. That just means they need to follow the rules too. Understood they're not happy about it.

To quote the police, "if the police are doing nothing illegal, they have nothing to fear from being recorded"

Comment Re:sigh (Score 2) 620

They're already making up bullshit to get away with it... what makes you think a SCOTUS ruling will stop it? They may have well charged the guy with poaching polar bears... it would have made as much sense as claiming a HIPAA violation to get him to stop video taping.

They think there is a grey area. If SCOTUS came out with a ruling that said: "recording the police in public is 100% legal in every situation, no exceptions, and obstruction of that recording by the cops who are being recorded is a CRIMINAL offense", then yeah I think the cops would very quickly change their behavior here.

Now, do I think SCOTUS will make such a ruling? Probably not.

Comment Re:sigh (Score 1) 620

Stop voting for the prosecutors who lack integrity. I blame voters who don't pay any attention to the candidates for whom they vote. They vote for whichever name sounds the best.

Honestly, how the hell I'm I supposed to know which prosecutor has integrity? I already have to know judges, city council members, school board members, propositions, I have to read the fine print on every letter, EULA, cell phone contract, bank privacy statements, etc, etc. I don't have the time to deal with every shady ass org or person that is trying to deceive me.

Comment Re:Yay (Score 2) 2987

I was not agreeing with him. It was to point out his absurdity. Just because criminals don't follow the law is no reason to not have the law. Laws are not only deterrents but also to provide punishment. Or are you goong to claim we should abolish laws against murder since criminals will do it anyway?

Murder, theft, rape are BEHAVIORS. These are actual morally wrong acts. You have to make certain actions illegal for a basic functioning society. Yet the idea of making the possession of certain things illegal is relatively a new concept. The idea here is that the illegal item is so strongly correlated with an illegal ACTION, that possession implies action. That is why cocaine is illegal. If you possess it, you're guaranteed to be using or selling it, and not simply keeping it safe one day for controlled pain relieving purposes for when SHTF.

Gun control is very different. Unlike cocaine, there is NOT a strong correlation that simply possessing a firearm implies murder. Note, I said murder not kill. Murder is wrong, killing is not necessarily so. Yes a gun's true purpose is to kill. Most people own a gun for self defense, to kill in self defense. Killing in self defense is morally and legally justified. Its justified just like being able to work and earn a living - its far more messier and gruesome, but your right to defend yourself is not less than your right to work and earn a living - both are for the purpose of the pursuit of one's happiness, or life.

Comment Re:Unauthorized export resale? (Score 4, Insightful) 936

You're missing the point. The police tastered this person because she did something perfectly legal, which is to say, buy iPhones. She may or may not have had an intent to later export them, which would be illegal-- but this is no excuse for their actions.

No, they tasered her because she did something perfectly illegal--refusing to leave private property when asked to do so. They didn't give a damn about (indeed, probably do not even know about) the arcana of encryption export controls.

I have to admit I'm a bit divided on this. On the one hand, I do believe she was probably intentionally being obtuse and refusing to comply. On the other hand, tasering for every mildly difficult or confrontational situation is ridiculous.

I think every time an officer uses a taser on someone, the officer should receive a taser shot 2x - just to make him evaluate whether the taser is really necessary in a situation.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...