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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Slashdot editors owe me a new keyboard. (Score 1) 365

>Now that they've found the Atari 2600 ET cartridges
>in a New Mexico landfill, there's plenty of room for
>all the Surfaces (all variants) that Microsoft can't sell.

wait a minute: they took those *out* of the landfill, rather than covering it i concrete, or calling in an air strike???

Comment Re:DECwindows ;) (Score 1) 204

On my parents' kitchen table . . .

Since I was around, it had to be sometime before mid-86 (likely summer 85. I think the family gatherings were July).

A cousin who worked for HP came by with a prototype (?) of a 68000 Unix luggable. It showed off by drawing a wire frame of the space shuttle and then,I believe, solidifying it, at an impressive speed for the time . . . (today, it would be done between frames, along with a couple of navies shooting at it . . .)

hawk

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 224

It actually is a bit different for the Republicans, in that they are caught in an internal party schism of a scale we've not seen on either side since desegregation, if even then. It's difficult for the less right to look good to the more right, undirected pushing against the Democrats is one of the few ways they have to do it.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 224

Do not forget that ObamaCare was rammed through without a single Republican vote in the House or Senate.

It's the unfortunate case that Republicans don't generally support Democratic bills. Witness the recent student loan bill. There is not much question that a better educated populance means a better economy and a stronger nation. It's a truism that we could just pay for college education in a number of fields and reap economic benefits of many times the spending. Indeed, we used to do more of that and the country was stronger when we did.

Comment Re:I really dig the Obamacare comments Bruce made (Score 1) 224

You meant "you wouldn't approve" rather than "you wouldn't understand".

Positioned correctly, it isn't all that socially reprehensible to state the sentiment that you don't believe you should pay for people who drive their motorcycle without helmets, people who self-administer addictive and destructive drugs, people who engage in unprotected sex with prostitutes or unprotected casual sex with strangers, and people who go climbing without using all of the safety equipment they could.

You don't really even need to get into whether you hold human life sacred, etc., to get that argument across. It's mostly just an economic argument, you believe yourself to be sensible and don't want to pay for people who aren't.

The ironic thing about this is that it translates to "I don't want to pay for the self-inflicted downfall of the people who exercise the libertarian rights I deeply believe they should have."

OK, not a bad position as far as it goes. Now, tell me how we should judge each case, once these people present themselves for medical care, and what we should do if they don't meet the standard.

Comment Re:citation needed (Score 1) 224

Citation needed.

I just looked for a minute and found This NIMH study. If you look at the percentages per year they are astonishingly high. 9% of people in any particular year just for mood disorders, and that's just the first on the list. Then they go down the list of other disorders. The implication is that everyone suffers some incident of mental illness in their lives. And given the number of psychiatrists, psychologists, and lay practitioners in practice, it seems like much of the population try to get help at times, if only from their priest or school guidance counselor.

You are not a rock. Can you honestly tell me that you haven't ever suffeed a moment of irrationality?

Slashdot Top Deals

Happiness is twin floppies.

Working...