Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:the solution: (Score 1) 651

I'm not sure how 'not forbidding' is different than 'allowing'.

The AC said it better than I ever could.

Regardless, slavery wasn't handled just through the 10th amendment. Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 specifies that slaves (i.e. people who are neither free nor indianans) count as 0.6 people for determining the number of congressional representatives from a state. Because of that, I'd say that the constitution condoned slavery.

You should actually research the matter rather than parroting poorly informed talking points. The 3/5th's clause was a compromise between the Northern States that wanted slaves to count for nothing (thereby eroding the political power of the slave holding states and presumably leading to a quicker demise for the institution of slavery) and the Southern States that wanted them counted at 100%. Had the North gotten its way it's quite probable that the Civil War and ultimate emancipation of the slaves would have occurred a generation sooner than happened in our timeline.

Comment Re:Honestly, rifles are not the problem (Score 1) 651

20 years ago, my dad and I came home from a camping trip a day early, but late at night. If my mom had been armed, she would have shot at both of us.

Gosh, if only there was a way to have let your Mom know that it was the two of you instead of a would-be rapist. Perhaps you could have yelled out "HI MOM, WE'RE HOME EARLY!" as you entered the house. Nah, that couldn't possibly work. It's a damn good thing for you she wasn't armed or you'd be dead now. I have the same fear every time I come home early, but thankfully my girlfriend has evolved some pretty neat biological features like eardrums that reduce the likelihood of this happening....

Comment Re:Anarchy is all fun and games... (Score 1) 651

Syria is most recent historical example

The Civil War there has been ongoing for a little over three years. The American Revolutionary War took eight years to fully resolve itself. The Syrian Government only controls about 20% of the country if this map is any indication, so that would seem to dispel your notion that you can't effectively fight the police state.

The Syrian Government is doomed in the long term; it's basically a battle of attrition at this point and the cold mathematical reality is that al-Assad's followers have less males of military age than his opponents. Barring decisive intervention from the outside he is doomed; I leave it to the reader to decide if this is a good thing or not...

Comment Re:This device is not new or interesting (Score 3, Insightful) 651

This would be great for organized crime and drug cartels. People with a need for untraceable guns, that use them regularly, and that have money to make it happen

Such people generally use stolen firearms or (more rarely) legally purchased firearms via straw buyers (i.e., Here's $1,500, buy this $1,000 firearm for me and pocket the change)

Criminals don't need to build their own firearms when there are sufficient numbers of stolen ones in circulation.

Comment Re:the solution: (Score 4, Informative) 651

The Constitution allowed slavery, for instance, and no vote for women.

It did no such thing, it simply reserved such matters to the States, per the 10th Amendment. The 14th and 19th Amendments changed that of course. The 14th was actually intended by its drafters to be interpreted more broadly than it has been, in theory it should have immediately applied the Bill of Rights against the States (including the 2nd Amendment) but SCOTUS neutered it and it has instead taken the better part of a century and a half to get most of the Bill of Rights applied against the States.

Incidentally, the established process of amending the Constitution (Article V) is available for gun control proponents to take advantage of if they think they can actually win a debate on the merits of the issue. All you need to do is convince 2/3rd's of Congress and 3/4ths of the State Legislatures to sign off on a repeal or amendment of the 2nd Amendment. Best of luck with that. :)

Comment Re:0 if dead, more if alive. (Score 2) 169

On the other hand, I don't spend large parts of my life exercising and worrying about my health. Why spend 30% of your off-time to perhaps live 20% longer? Especially if most of that time is going to be in a retirement home, worrying about bowel movements and whether there will be pudding.

In no particular order:

* The person who is fit/healthy is less likely to end up unable to wipe his own ass in a retirement home.
* Fit and healthy people get more attention from the opposite sex.
* Exercise is a natural anti-depressant.
* Exercise boosts libido.
* You'll sleep better.
* You can eat more.

Of course there are no promises. You could be in the best shape of your life and get hit by a bus tomorrow. Such is life.

Comment Re:Sigh (Score 5, Interesting) 341

We ALL know how Politicians get bought and sold so let's cut the "total" bullshit here.

Yes, they do. But not all of them and certainly not in the manner that the GP presented. One needs to actually understand how the system works before one condemns it and/or proposes fixes for it. Incidentally, most of the people in politics hate the system as much as you do. You think they enjoy spending so much of their day begging people for money so they can fund their campaigns? The real world isn't House of Cards, most people actually enter public service for noble reasons, ranging from the mundane fixing of potholes to the desire to advance a social cause. The problem is two fold:

1) Campaign finance reform is inherently suspect because it's passed by people who have an incentive to make it harder for incumbents to lose elections. There's a reason why opponents frequently referred to McCain-Feingold as the "Incumbent Protection Act"

2) Meaningful campaign finance reform would require a Constitutional Amendment; the idea I most liked was the notion of precluding private donations but giving every American citizen X dollars to allocate as they see fit. It's an awesome idea but one that's utterly unconstitutional. Perhaps you should start building a network for this concept rather than spouting talking points about money going into Senators pockets?

Comment Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation (Score 1) 281

Having everybody live off a high protein diet is unsustainable. There are whole segments of American society that couldn't afford it, never mind the third world, and even if money was no object it would be completely unsustainable from an environmental standpoint.

It's cute though that you took what I was saying and morphed it into "cutting sugar is unsustainable"; all I did was condemn your silly paleo diet, not the notion of cutting sugar or making other healthy lifestyle choices. One can cut out soda (or even enjoy it in moderation) without adopting a made up diet that claims to be what our ancestors ate.

Of course, physical activity is even better. I eat whatever the hell I want. You can do that when you're averaging 30 miles a week of running. Pass the cheesecake, mmm'kay?

Comment Re:Sigh (Score -1, Offtopic) 341

Of course they will, while comcast is telling them this, they are stuffing wads of money in the senators pockets.

You know that talking point is total bullshit, right? What you describe would be a felony offense in the United States. Nor can corporations give money directly to campaigns. They can donate to PACs, which are a special animal in the American political system, but they can't donate directly to campaigns or candidates. When people tell you that "Big oil/telecom/Hollywood/whatever gave X dollars to Y candidate" they really mean that the employees of those industries gave X dollars to Y candidate. Work at a gas station and donate $20 to your State Assemblywoman? That's added to the total donation from "big oil" when her opponent needs a talking point.

I realize such intricacies don't make for good talking points but it would be extremely helpful if people would at least learn how the system works rather than spreading FUD that only serves to undermine the tenuous amount of faith we have left in our system.

Comment Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation (Score 1) 281

Try doing any cardio of moderate to heavy intensity (which you really ought to be doing, if you want to live a long life) without carbs. Your diet is a fad and an utterly unsustainable one (from an environmental standpoint) at that. If you really want to live like our ancestors did start having sex at 10 and forgo modern medicine. You'll be dead in your 20s and the carbon impact of your selfish lifestyle will cancel itself out.

Comment Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation (Score 1) 281

she says this while sat there drinking coffee

What's wrong with coffee?

If she doesn't change her lifestyle, i'm estimating she will be bedridden within 5 years and dead within 10, whereas if she put some effort in, she would have a chance of living a lot longer.

Except she won't be. And that's the problem. If they take their blood pressure and cholesterol meds they fucking live forever and just keep on eating. Meanwhile the rest of us get to subsidize their lifestyle choices because our healthcare system doesn't allow insurance underwriters to take lifestyle choices into account. The 40 year old sedentary fat ass pays the same as the 40 year old marathon runner.

Comment Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation (Score 1) 281

Yeah... and I have found something that works extraordinarily well at burning fat: sprinting. I do a 15 min jog and then 10 reps of 20s sprints/10s rest. Somehow, this basically just completely bypasses the normal laws of physics and starts telling your body to burn fat immediately

Fat metabolism doesn't work that way; your body can metabolize a finite amount of fat in a given time and when the muscles call upon more energy (as they invariably will if you're sprinting) the difference is going to come from glycogen. It does take a few minutes for the fat metabolism to get going -- this is one of the reasons why distance runners warm up and/or start slow in long runs -- though there are interesting studies that suggest caffeine can accelerate the process.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Working...