Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:I really hate gun control morons like these (Score 1) 899

Now more moderate gun owners, who might have been amenable, or at least accepting, of the idea hate it because they believe what the gun lobby is saying.

Actually, it simply proves the gun lobby correct. Obviously, we need to incorporate mental health records into state checks and do a background check on everyone who wants to buy any firearm, but "registering" them is a different animal and IS fraught with problems that the 2nd Amendment was created for. The system needs work, but registering isn't the solution. The Sandy Hook shooting wouldn't have been prevented, for example, because the guns were stolen, not legally purchased.

A little homework shows that most crimes are by illegally purchased (or stolen) firearms anyway. Making it harder for normal people, like me (who had an FFL for years but isn't really into guns) only drives the black market more. Just like how prohibition made booze easier to get, and how pot prohibition makes pot easy to get. It also makes it profitable. Forget registering, and put the money where it would actually make a difference, the ILLEGAL trade of firearms.

Comment Re:Sanity vs. politically motivated scaremongering (Score 1) 267

In fact, only a few hundred tons of mercury can contaminate an entire ocean.

That's a lot of thermometers.

* 300 tons = 2000x300 = 600,000lbs
* There are 453.59 grams in a pound.
* Therefore, 300 tones = 272,154,000 grams
* A thermometer has between .5 and 3 grams of mercury in it (thx Wikipedia). Lets say 1.5 grams, lower average.
* It will take approximately 181,436,001 thermometers to contaminate the entire ocean.
* QED

Comment Re:Alternative Answer... (Score -1, Troll) 380

I live in America. We invented clutchless driving around 1950, and after only 50 short years of experimentation, their MPG is just as good as a manual drive. Since I'm not a race car driver, I fail to see the point of manually shifting.

Besides, It is really difficult and dangerous to eat a burrito and carry on a cell phone call when you are shifting gears, so everyone should get automatics simply for safety's sake.

Comment Re:Crazy! (Score 4, Funny) 244

What's next, having to pay money to sing in the shower?

Well, if there is an audience, yes. And it is about time they started making these freeloading children pay their fair share for entertainment. The librarians can always pay for the royalties by simply speaking a commercial every chapter. That way kids can learn about other important thinks like Coke, and the new Barbie. /sarcasm

Comment Re:Citable (Score 1) 373

Renaming (actually, "moving") automatically creates a redirect from the old name, to the new name, and bots comb all the articles that have the old link, and fix them to have the new link. As for all old links that you saved, the redirect will automatically take you to the new named article. renaming/moving doesn't break links, it just redirects them back to the original content. The only way a link breaks is if the link is to a subsection, and the subsection changes, but it doesn't matter, as the "broken" link will still always take you back to at least the top of the article, regardless of how many times it has been "moved".

Comment Re:Citable (Score 1) 373

If an article is deleted or merged out, it is only because the topic has been deemed "not notable" by a consensus of editors. There are not typically the types of subjects you would be doing a term paper on. If you "really really" wanted a copy of a deleted article, you can likely talk an admin into userfying a copy of the article for you, as deleted articles aren't really deleted, they are just removed from general access. Same with merged articles. Admins have access to everything, including "deleted" material.

Comment Re:Citable (Score 5, Insightful) 373

You will never be able to cite Wikipedia in a paper without looking foolish. It really isn't designed for that. You CAN use Wikipedia to get an understanding of a topic, and the references they use are usually pretty good and CAN be used as a cite without looking fooling.

Wikipedia is a great tool, but it will never replace paper encyclopedias, by design. Then again, any paper that only cites encyclopedias (paper or otherwise) isn't a good paper. Even Wikipedia requires multiple sources, as should any good paper, for a balance of perspective and confirmation of key points.

Comment Re:Well, yeah... (Score 1) 296

Actually, I could install Linux and DOSbox on the Kindle and run the software. There is one port on the Fire, and running the modem through it wouldn't be trivial, but likely doable. Even after all that kludging and emulation, it would be more powerful than the 486. The problem is that you lack imagination and understanding that behind the interface, the Fire has a dual core CPU and plenty of RAM and storage space.

Comment Re:Bottom line: never cooperate with the authoriti (Score 1) 777

In the US, you can remain silent and not incriminate yourself but still present evidence that exonerates yourself, as long as you aren't the person doing the testifying. Be it video tape, witnesses, data logs, etc.

The basis for this is "It is better for 10 guilty men to go free than 1 innocent man be convicted.", which is (or used to be) the foundation of western jurisprudence.

Slashdot Top Deals

To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)

Working...