Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:ummmm (Score 1, Insightful) 275

Poltically correct bullshit.

States rights are good when you want to break federal law. But state rights are shit when the state wants to name something in it.

Reminds me of the Civil War, where the States Rights issue was that the south was rebelling against states rights and wanted a strong federal government. But 150 years later, it's forgotten by the losers, and they assert they were on the other sides of the states rights issue. Always changing their story, because reality is against them.

Comment Re:ummmm (Score 4, Informative) 275

The name was Denali before the White Man reassigned the name to honor a white man. It'd been unofficially Denali to locals ever since. The feds refused to let the locals name it until 1980, when the federal park was renamed to Denali National Park and Preserve. It'd been officially Denali to locals ever since. Why should the feds disregard the local names for things, and force their own names on local features?

Comment Re:The above is informative ? (Score 1) 509

Yeah, the guy in the car crash isn't counted in your statistics.. Your complaints about "war" use a broad killing that isn't very well focused on "war". It also counts police shootings. You know, the ones caused by governments (the police are government employees). Do you think that anybody on the planet but you considers a shooting at a traffic stop "war"?

Comment Re:The above is informative ? (Score 1) 509

No, I did read the links. You obviously didn't understand them. The reason the recent history has been better is that the numbers are heavily skewed with a few World Wars, and the internal actions of China and Russia. Correct for world wars, and a few "isolated" internal actions, and the deaths you are counting are relatively steady.

Comment Re:Yeah, nah. (Score 1) 509

Because, nice as the US is, has a reputation of harassing ex-citizens. Going back to visit relatives gets you on lots of lists that need inspections, searches, and lots of questions.

I think the un-Fair Tax is evil, but if it ever passes, it'll simplify my tax liability greatly. I think the only country in the world that taxes non-resident citizens is the US.

Comment Re:Yeah, nah. (Score 1) 509

cities wouldn't care about lawsuits (which have cost some of them dearly).

Where do the cities get the money from to pay for the lawsuits? Seems most of the politicians and police higher-ups don't care too much about losing lawsuits (at least not from the cost standpoint).

Comment Re:Wrong people to strip (Score 1) 509

Don't worry, we make up for that by having very few refugees. Our policy on that is one of the tightest in the world. Sure, we are #11 on the list of # of refugees, but bottom half of the list when you look at refugees per resident.

And the laws aren't nearly as permissive as you state, or we'd have the millions of illegals be millions of immigrants. There's a difference. You can't have it both ways. If we are so permissive, why are there so many millions that are "illegal"?

And I use "immigration" loosely. We should have 5 million migrant worker visas to pass out to Mexicans and others who want to work seasonal labor in the US. Often they would rather work a season, then go to Mexico until the next season, but they can't because crossing the border is too hard.

So our unwillingness to issue visas causes illegal immigration that would otherwise be a temporary work trip. The current political climate refuses to recognize the difference between immigrant and non-immigrant visas. Someone with an H1-B can't live in the US indefinitely. So it's not a "immigration" issue. It's a work-visa issue.

And plenty of places around the world have work visas for high-demand jobs. They just have those jobs generally listed as skilled jobs. In the US, our work demand is mostly for unskilled labor. So our rules are no better. Our standards no higher. It's just the jobs we need the most help with are "lower".

Comment Re:What do you expect? (Score 1) 132

Your constraints are not narrow enough. I've seen people do similar, with solar panels and equipment chosen for low-power usage. But 24/7 is nearly impossible. The people I've dealt with have had power for 8 hours a day, running a satellite connection, tablet or low-powered laptop (though my HTPC is about 1/2 the power of my laptop, but my PC doesn't include a monitor, and the laptop isn't the best possible eco choice).

If you want 24/7, you'll have to be in cell coverage. Get an old Nokia, and keep that around for your "emergency calls", running on AA batteries, recharged if you have the energy budget. Keeping Skype online 24/7 is impractical in this case. Unless "camping" includes a few thousand pounds of generators, panels, fuel and such.

Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.