Comment Re: So What (Score 1) 324
That may be so, but certainly not because they'd miss Big Gov.
That may be so, but certainly not because they'd miss Big Gov.
Probably because there just aren't all that many people in the 1st world who are truly going hungry.
Total government expenditures in the US were around 10% of GDP in 1930. Was the US a lawless hellhole at 10%?
Cause it's around 40% today.
10% flat sales tax on everything (consumption tax, also applied at borders)
I'm fine with that, my imported megayacht never crosses the border. Here's $5 for the rubber dinghy I come ashore in.
This is another power grab by the religious right. It is connected to their efforts to restrict sex (through access to contraception, sex education, abortion, etc) and control the lives of Americans in the bedroom. But you know what? Every article, every boycott and every protest is pushing them back. Similar bills are stalling or failing. The outrage at actions like these are causing more and more Americans to leave their religion in disgust. The more we drag this bullshit into the light, the more the theocrats feel the heat.
Just, wow. This is not about some vast right-wing religious conspiracy or hatred for some group or groups.
This is about not being forced to advocate for a religious/ideological/political belief/position to which one is fundamentally opposed.
From my post here: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Sell somebody a cake regardless of race/religion/sex or sexual orientation/etc/etc fine. No problem.
Being forced to *participate in and/or advocate* for or against a religious principle or political/ideological position, *there* is where the problem lies.
For example, an LGBT-owned bakery should not be forced to provide a cake with "God Hates Fags" on it for the Westboro Baptist nutjobs. Provide a generic cake? Yes. Provide the message? No.
Same thing here. Provide a cake, yes. Participate in advocating LGBT practices, no.
Why is this so difficult a concept to understand? What gives anyone the right to force someone else to participate in and/or advocate for something they are fundamentally opposed to?
Strat
Sell somebody a cake regardless of race/religion/sex or sexual orientation/etc/etc fine. No problem.
Being forced to *participate in and/or advocate* for or against a religious principle or political/ideological position, *there* is where the problem lies.
For example, an LGBT-owned bakery should not be forced to provide a cake with "God Hates Fags" on it for the Westboro Baptist nutjobs. Provide a generic cake? Yes. Provide the message? No.
Same thing here. Provide a cake, yes. Participate in advocating LGBT practices, no.
Why is this so difficult a concept to understand? What gives anyone the right to force someone else to participate in and/or advocate for something they are fundamentally opposed to?
Strat
Actually the entire idea of these special entitlements that destroy individual rights TO DISCRIMINATE is a power grab by the insane government that is out of control.
Individual people discriminate every day. As a potential employee you can choose to work for a one legged Brazilian tranny and there is nothing any of the other potential employers can do to stop this obvious bigotry and discrimination by you against their businesses, NOR should there be anything they could do to force you to work for them. That's EXACTLY the same thing.
PRECISELY the same thing, since you working for a company is exactly like a company doing work for other people. When you buy a product you are buying work done by a company for you. A company is people standing behind it (corporations are in fact people, not as in 'Google is a living person', it is not. It is as in Google is owned by people, that's the people corporations are). A person that owns/runs a company has his or her right to discriminate and the Constitution of the USA is there to protect that right.
A right is a protection against government oppression and abuse, nothing else.
A government telling somebody that just because they are employing somebody they now lost a right is abuse and oppression and a power grab and unconstitutional and illegal and immoral.
Should people discriminate against each other based on sex, gender, age, race, colour? We know that some will and some do. If a business does so, it will face consequences whatever they are in the market. As to a belief that just because a business exists somewhere you automatically get an entitlement to their service - that is hubris and destruction of the people running that business as individuals and it cannot stand.
Then perhaps they're not really a fan of racing as such, but a fan of noise and foul odors.
For those people, there's always going to be monster truck rallies.
=Smidge=
My car needs less than 10 kg for 300km and it's not even a hybrid.
Is your car's engine 760HP?
And your car gets 22 km per liter (52MPG)?
=Smidge=
The battery is fully integrated into the vehicle and is part of the structure. It can't be easily removed. Not for lack of want, though. Swappable batteries are under development, but it will likely mean compromises in the chassis construction.
I'm more annoyed that there is a *minimum* pit time, meaning drivers have to wait and get penalized if they leave the pits too early.
=Smidge=
> Formula 1 jumped the shark when they disallowed ground effects.
Ground effects whilst technologically interesting suffer from safety problems.
As soon as a car deviates from the optimum ride height for the undertray effects to work the downforce varies significantly. This is a problem when apex speeds are significantly higher due to the extra downforce created by ground effects.
Hit a bump the wrong way and lose downforce == shoot off the corner at much higher speeds into the barrier.
It's also important, as I understand it, that the cars all be the same so they can limit the number of unknowns when evaluating performance and engineering of the vehicles.
My only complaint, and it's a minor one, is they're too gimmicky with the "Fan boost" thing.
=Smidge=
The reason we don't get newer designs in the US is purely regulatory - it would cost billions to certify a new reactor technology, so companies find it cheaper to just build another copy
You do realize that your point supports my position. One major way that humans are faulty with regard to today's nuclear fission is the amount of administratium that interferes with every aspect of that industry. Engineers do not study administratium and are not trained in its management. And yet over the long term it is one of the most dangerous elements in water cooled nuclear plant operations.
I'm gonna pretend you're actually interested in the answer, but let's face it, we're really talking past each other, to our fellow Slashdotters. Thank you for smoking.
The reason for the mass move to encryption -- like Wikipedia and Google moving to default HTTPS, and people like me working on making encryption more approachable by the masses -- was the revelation that non-suspects were being monitored. That is why there is now a haystack within which to hide the needles, and that is why the encryption is now too strong for the intelligence agencies to break when we really want them to be able to.
Moreover, while I'm here, and since I want terrorists to get caught, let me add this: The solution is not increasing the level of distrust between citizens and government. The solution is restoring the reasonable, moderated, level of trust that we used to have in the executive branch. That starts with the ones who created the rift, and that is not the people who were sending all their traffic in the clear; it is the assholes who recorded it all and denied they were doing it.
"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds