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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Internet comments will terrify you. (Score 5, Insightful) 198

...I discovered that a large percentage of my fellow countrymen are ignorant, illogical, paranoid, quasi-literate, parochial, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, racist, anti-intellectual believers in UFOs.

That does seem to be the picture you get by reading people's opinions online. I find comfort in believing that the sample of opinions posted online isn't representative of the total population since it suffer from a sort of volunteer bias, where the people with the most outrageous opinions have the greater will to express those opinions to a bunch of strangers.
Either that, or we ARE surrounded by ignorant, illogical, paranoid, quasi-literate, parochial, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, racist, anti-intellectual believers in UFOs and are all screwed.

Comment Re:Reflexivity (Score 1) 561

Major tangent: Economics, capitalism, libertarianism - Adam Smith, the rational economic man, the invisible hand, the free market, the virtue of self-interest - all promise the greater benefit. So why the fuck have we not seen these jokers apologize publicly when it's obvious that the self-interested, rational actions of homeowners and lenders in the US have led to a global bloody recession where people from Stockholm to Brisbane are being laid off?

Well, I don't know about all the other fuckers, but I'm pretty sure that in Adam Smith's case, it's because he's dead.

Comment "Electronic" Voting is Unnecessary (Score 1) 82

Most paper ballots in the US are counted electronically, and still have a paper trail. That's the best of both worlds. The voting system right now in the US is fast, simple, and familiar. There is NO reason to complicate things by adding touchscreen machines of any other kind of nonsense. Like the German supreme court realized, all it does is complicate things and increase the opacity in the voting process.

Comment Re:Amazing (Score 1) 269

I think it's even more amazing when you consider that it is 240 watt-hours of energy PER DAY. It's actual power usage I'm guessing is much less. If your lights are incandescent, then they probably use that much energy in less than two hours. Damn, why can't our terrestrial equipment be this efficient?

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Working...