Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So your point then... (Score 1) 22

by smitty_one_each (#48901803) Attached to: Props to William Jacobson
So let me get this "straight": are you advocating pure amorality as the only means of escaping a kind of "we will enforce what we want to enforce" moral singularity?
It may shock you, but I'm quite content to view the federal Constitution through a purely libertarian lens. But we need to prevent leaky abstractions in the object model. Individual, private citizens should be opaque above the 57 States, and we should offload the non-Enumerated, Progressive aspects of our Federal government.
However, it's highly doubtful that you have the intellectual fortitude to carry the thought through to conclusion, much less the fortitude to support its implementation.

Comment: Re:So your point then... (Score 1) 22

by smitty_one_each (#48901395) Attached to: Props to William Jacobson

how much energy will you put in to the enforcement of laws that oppress individual freedoms?

Well, were this wild hypothetical somehow instantiated, I guess we'd have to start with tracking you down in the real world and just screwing with you for sheer recreation.
As far as "needful" goes, one good approach for starters would be to begin with the overcriminalization problem and just work backward. That is, there is plenty of good thought by sane people in circulation on the topic. It's a going-in position.
What's your next diversion? Do you shoot the messenger? Do you claim that "love is hate, peace is war" and any conservative approach is really just tyranny?

Comment: Re:So your point then... (Score 1) 22

by smitty_one_each (#48900615) Attached to: Props to William Jacobson
Sure. Let's enforce all the laws, to the point that we realize that we've tremendous clutter, then set about streamlining them, so that what's on the books is needful, enforceable, reasonable, and minimal.
Such a state would probably optimize the balance between the individual and the group.
Which invites the question: what's your next obfuscation?

Comment: Re:So your point then... (Score 1) 22

by smitty_one_each (#48899469) Attached to: Props to William Jacobson
I find your interrogative disingenuous. The question is NOT "why do you support local jurisdictions passing laws regulating things. . .such as ammunition clips".
The question is, given laws, why do we tolerate uneven enforcement thereof.
This is a specific example of why I generally assume, as a default, that you are arguing in bad faith, or at least trolling, until proven otherwise.

Comment: Re:not my takeaway at all (Score 1) 22

by smitty_one_each (#48899453) Attached to: Props to William Jacobson

I think when the Irish and Polish and Italian immigrant waves came, they actually liked the basic system of America and wanted to melt into it. They thought they could make it just fine on their own, by working. Now we have multiculturalism and its encouragement of cultural segregation, and of not learning the language and customs and fully joining in. Now suddenly these days it's like America is at a zenith of racism and the message that can and does resonate is that you can't make it on your own in America, without the Left's help.

You have to admire the Left's genius in realizing that there is more political power to be derived from keeping people divided, rather than having them unite under one set of capitalistic Judeo-Christians values.

Comment: Re:Internet Explorer (Score 2) 98

It wasn't impossible to write cross platform browser stuff in the late 1990s, when most corporations started this whole "We'll standardize on browser X" policy making, but it required a discipline that had most developers throwing their hands up in the air in disgust.

I had these arguments many times back then. It was laziness more than anything else. We were writing cross-platform web applications without problems at that time. We were trying to convince other developers to follow the same route, but their attitude was mainly "IE has 90%+ market share, why bother?" They didn't believe a time would come when proprietary IE code wouldn't work - even if other browsers caught on, they were expecting them to copy the IEisms. They certainly didn't believe that even later versions of Internet Explorer wouldn't support their crappy code.

- IE4+ was the most standard. Yes, really. Those versions had a relatively complete implementation of CSS.

Let's not overstate things. Netscape bet on JSSS and when the W3C selected CSS as the standard instead, they scrambled to fix Netscape 4 to convert from CSS to JSSS on the fly. So Netscape 4 was exceptionally bad at CSS. Internet Explorer 4 was merely very bad at CSS. Opera was ahead at that time. I don't think you can call IE4 "relatively complete" unless you only compare it to Netscape 4, which was unusually bad.

Neckties strangle clear thinking. -- Lin Yutang