Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Tech circles vs slashdot (Score 1) 143

Of course they do. The Libertarian Party is just where Ron Paullowers go to find out who they should vote for. Unsurprisingly the answer is always "whoever is on the GOP ticket".

More to the point though, the poster claimed that slashdot users have "liberal social values", which they simply do not.

Comment Re:Tech circles vs slashdot (Score 1) 143

If anything Slashdot is Libertarian.

Only in that a large number of slashdot members are paullowers, who like to call themselves "libertarian".

Pro Liberal social policies

You're joking, right? We routinely see front page articles telling us that we should all own more guns. We routinely see discussions dominated by people shouting fact-free nonsense about abortion. We often see front page articles about how evil public schools are.

pro conservative fiscal policies

That part I agree with.

with a fair amount of independent thought.

10-15 years ago there was plenty of independent thought here. Now thought itself has become rare.

Comment Re:Tech circles vs slashdot (Score 1) 143

The fact is, the whole (D) good (R) bad (Or visa versa) is really getting old. And do not pretend the (D) don't do the very same thing. Blindly following your party is for Sheeple.

I never claimed that the democrats are better in any meaningful way. In fact, if you look at my comment and JE history here you'll find I criticize Obama quite regularly.

Rather, my point is that slashdot is overwhelmingly conservative. Anyone who does not adhere to the conservative agenda is labelled a "socialist" (generally by people who have no clue what socialism actually entails). I haven't decided yet if I like the TPP or not - particularly as we haven't know the full details of the deal yet - but most slashdot members decided long ago simply because they heard it was something that Obama wanted.

Comment Re:Cool article... (Score 2) 102

One of the reasons Uber, Lyft and all the other "ride sharing" app companies get so much flack because they are breaking the law.

I'd be more sympathetic if 1) Uber and Lyft were offering the same services as taxis (you can't flag down an Uber; you have to request one), and 2) many jurisdictions hadn't already ruled that you're wrong.

Comment Re:Why don't taxis just provide good service?! (Score 1) 102

In most jurisdictions the taxi companies have been subject to more rigorous (i.e. expensive) standards than Uber has been following.

...because they paid good money to write those laws. Taxi laws are a prime example of regulatory capture. For example, Company A got a sweet deal on credit card readers and they spent 2 years installing them in their cabs. Then, they tell the local regulatory body that credit card readers are a necessary public good and suggest that all taxis should have readers installed in a reasonable time frame - say, within three months. Finally, they laugh as their competitors scramble to shell out inflated prices for emergency rush orders on credit card readers so that they can stay in business.

For another example, three companies get together for group bargaining with an insurance company: "if you give us a good rate, we'll guarantee that all of our cabs will carry your new expanded coverage." Once that deal's in place, they ask for regulations to require all taxis to carry that level of coverage. Of course, all other companies have to pay the un-negotiated rate and now they have a harder time competing.

You don't get to write the laws and then bitch about them. Well, apparently you can, but you shouldn't be able to.

Comment Tech circles vs slashdot (Score 1) 143

Sure, in tech circles the TPP is criticized for technical reasons. Here on slashdot, however, the main argument boils down to "Obama supports TPP, and Obama is evil, so TPP is evil". It could be a bill to give flags to orphans and it would still be unpopular here if Obama was supporting it.

Comment Re:It's the Smitty Time Machine! (Score 1) 25

For example, when supporters of Bush claim to be "conservatives", you claim that they are not, because you like conservatives.

And yet you cheerfully claim Obama is a conservative, too (?).

And in support of my previous argument, you claim that he is not, because you don't like him but you like conservatives. What happened to the "big tent party" and all that?

Comment Re:It's the Smitty Time Machine! (Score 1) 25

As you wander further away from the topic, it is worthwhile to get back to where we were before...

I'm curious to know who you think you are referring to now. I understand you yearn to redefine communist and a large number of terms that you want to relate to it. But really, are you expecting to get away with redefining fascist as well?

For "look at the historical wreckage in the wake of self-identifying Communists" values of "redefine".

What you just said is another fascinating case of you applying vastly different realities to people you don't like than you apply to those who you do. For example, when supporters of Bush claim to be "conservatives", you claim that they are not, because you like conservatives. However, when people you don't like - particularly those who have been dead for decades and left with no way to defend themselves - are somehow described as having called themselves something that vaguely resembles "communist", you are more than happy to treat that label as 1,000,000 percent credible.

However your gelatinous definition - and vacuous (to be generous) understanding - of communism is not the point. The real point here is that you just accused someone - particularly the person named in this JE who you so dearly love to hate - of being a fascist. I asked you how on earth you think you can possibly support that claim and you responded by instead reminding me that you don't know shit about communism.

I didn't need to be reminded about that. If you want to surprise me, say something that is factually accurate about communism - I don't recall a time yet when you have done that.

Comment Re: America (Score 1) 376

No, I want them to already have values which align with my own.

What you're advocating is a politician who's corrupt and votes for legislation that's against my own interests (like the DMCA, Iraq War, etc.), and then only changes course somewhat after he/she finds out that position is too unpopular, so they change their rhetoric somewhat to try to appeal to the voters and keep getting re-elected. Meanwhile, the shitty legislation has already been passed, and they're not doing anything to repeal it.

The point of a democracy isn't to elect someone who will do the bare minimum to get re-elected, while passing as much stuff as they can for their corporate benefactors without pissing off their constituents too much. The point of a representative democracy is to elect candidates who share your own values, so that they can spend their time studying the issues in-depth and making sound decisions on them, because they may come up with a different decision after studying the issue for weeks or months than you would after reading some slanted "news" article for 1 minute.

Comment Re:It's the Smitty Time Machine! (Score 1) 25

fascist behavior pattern

I'm curious to know who you think you are referring to now. I understand you yearn to redefine communist and a large number of terms that you want to relate to it. But really, are you expecting to get away with redefining fascist as well?

Because if you're talking about Hillary, there is plenty wrong with her for sure. But she is not a fascist.

Comment Re:Western World Projects are becoming embarrasing (Score 1) 176

It's simple: Western society is collapsing. It's too bad, too; we're finally figuring out a few things like equal rights for gays and ending prohibition for pot, the former marginalizing a significant portion of society (reducing productivity) and the latter costing society a fortune in money and violence (just like alcohol Prohibition did in the 1930s).

But I guess all the corruption, plus all the outsourcing to low-cost nations, plus all the lawsuits, is catching up with us.

"It doesn't much signify whom one marries for one is sure to find out next morning it was someone else." -- Rogers