Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score 1) 699

by Marxist Hacker 42 (#49611365) Attached to: Pope Attacked By Climate Change Skeptics

Species that are unable to adapt have been going extinct without mankind's help for 9/10ths of the planet's history. For the remaining 1/10th, we've been a major motivator of evolution, that's true- Dodos and wooly mammoths and the like. But we are also to the point with GMO research that we can be a major cause of increased adaptation- we can speed up evolution, and likely will, because beef is tasty (among many other species that are directly useful to us, such as bees). Speaking of that last, just saw a report on OPB about a pair of beekeepers with a unique solution to colony collapse disorder- they're breeding stronger queen bees that can live through Oregon winters.

If mankind wants to survive, food needs to be our top priority. Luckily, as I mentioned someplace above I think, food production is also an answer to excess atmospheric carbon. Especially if we keep locking our own carbon up in airtight containers buried in concrete when we die.

Comment: No power?? (Score 1) 376

by Uberbah (#49607273) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

Contrary to popular belief, the president has no power at all to deal with the national debt.

The Executive:

1) Writes the budget. The budget defines how money is spent. How much money is spent has just a little bit to do with the national debt
2) Signs or vetoes legislation. Presidents say "I will veto this bill if it does/does not do X" all the time.
3) Is the leader of his party, and largely dictates his party's agenda. Even as a lame duck, Obama can cut off campaign money for Dems running for reelection next year if they aren't "team players" on the budget.

The president has more power and influence over the budget than entire committees or leaders of the respective chambers. That's not quite the polar opposite of "no power", but it's pretty close.

Comment: Re:Ah Free Market Capitalism (Score 1) 376

by Uberbah (#49606641) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

Within 400 yards of my front door is a hydro power plant owned by a paper mill.

Power that probably is 1) regulated as a public utility or 2) has to compete with another provider, and cannot raise rates as they see fit.

Complete non sequitur and contrary to fact.

Quite the Randian gag reflex there. Post office! Municipal water! Boo!

Most people want cars, do you want to have to buy a Trabant? Everyone needs shelter, do you want to live in a "project"? Everyone needs clothes, do you want to be limited to what the government supplies? (Good luck if you need orthopedic shoes.)

Now there's a complete non sequitur. You're moving the goalpost from a natural monopoly to other markets that don't have monopolies. Because Randians have no honest answer on how to deal with natural monopolies or market consolidation.

Government control allows the appointment of political hacks to jobs that they're not competent to perform.

Grab yourself a time machine and find the laziest bureaucrat from the most run down Soviet plant you can imagine. He's not going to have a direct incentive to cut corners that get people killed the way corporate hacks do for your beloved capitalists.

Comment: Re: "If you have nothing to hide..." (Score 1) 194

In this thread, a person did in fact make this statement:

Sorry but assault, vandalism, arson, destruction of public property, looting, etc are not Constitutionally protected activities no matter what the reason.

And whoever said that was completely correct. The Boston tea party was not constitutional either despite the constitution not even conceived at the time. But it was justified because it was a direct assault on tyranny and oppression in the defense of liberty.

No statement claiming that they are always Constitutionally protected activities was made to my knowledge. That they are never Constitutionally protected no matter what the reason was made. True, you could argue that it's not in the US Constitution, but there were state Constitutions cited that rejected the notion.

Neither state being the one the looting and burning of a CVS and senior center happened in- and that is even if you do stretch the wording to justify legal violence. Also, neither targeted centers had anything to do with the government. It's like shooting your neighbor because you want the mayor to resign.

It was the first-level reply, so perhaps you missed it, but that claim is why the discussion is not about whether or not any given incident is justified or unjustified, but whether any at all can be. There's no need to concern ourselves with proving the justification of every incident, that some incidents are not justified is recognized. The burden is on the assertion that no incidents are justified. If you can't follow that, then it seems to me you're the one who wants to ignore what's really the subject of discussion, and isn't bothering to pay attention to what has been said throughout the scope of it.

Again, what you quoted mentions constitutional protections- not justifications. Can violence be justified, sure it can. Does the US constitution or any other justify it? Not under the first amendment and as far as I can tell, only in the defense of the country or state against invasion. But more importantly, what happened in Baltimore is nothing comparable to the Boston Tea Party.

Again, whatever happened to that CVS, even if a totally unjustified tragedy, does not prove every other instance was not justified, and you seem to accept that others are justifiable.

I'm not sure what you are trying to claim here. If you think past situations justify this situation, you would be wrong. That would be like you killing your neighbor in his back yard because someone shot an intruder in their house 5 years ago. They are different situations and while one is justified, it cannot be used to justify the other. If you think burning hundred of cars belonging to private citizens or drug stores or senior centers is justified because of the Boston tea party, you would be incorrect.

As far as I can tell, there is nobody arguing that absolutely no incidents are unjustified, but there is somebody who did argue that absolutely no incidents were justified. That there was no acceptable reason.

From what I can tell in this thread and by what you laid reference to already, the term is not justified but constitutional. They are not interchangeable and those who burned or looted were not within their constitutional rights.

Then they went around and said "Oh wait, here's a reason I do find acceptable." when the Boston Tea Party was mentioned which means they really ought to consider admitting they didn't hold their opinion for long.

Maybe you are confused. The Boston Tea Party was an attack on government not civilians or private corporations. The East India Tea company was not a private company either. It was being supported by the British government and had newly created privileges that locked all competition out along with a tax placed on the tea to specifically benefit them.

Again, where is the connection to government acts that justify these actions. If there is none, it surely is not comparable to the Boston Tea Party.

Comment: Re:THINK (Score 1) 376

by Uberbah (#49606351) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

re LOST in every carefully examined recount conducted in exhaustive after-the-fact tests run by a panel of journalism outlets (including some that actively opposed Bush and worked to get Gore in office).

You mean the press study showing Gore winning a statewide recount under any scenario? If only all wingers were as considerate when debunking their own revisionist history.

No, the Supreme Court stopped a corrupt recount process, aided by a partisan state court, from continuing under unreasonable and unfair conditions. They didn't "appoint" Bush the winner, they called out Gore's cherry-picking, standards-shifting strategy for being the craven election-grab it was trying to be.

Deranged projection, noted. Florida was using one standard: determine the intent of the voter. Pretending that is "corrupt" because Florida had half a dozen different voting systems is being willfully obtuse. Ignoring the fact that all the corruption was coming from the GOP - voter purge lists, counting illegally cast overseas ballots, letting workers take home incomplete ballots to fill them out from Republican counties - is just sophistry.

Comment: Cute asshattery is still asshattery (Score 2) 152

by Uberbah (#49606247) Attached to: Statues of Assange, Snowden and Manning Go Up In Berlin

depicting Manning as a male

....as Manning was when the cables were handed over to Wikileaks.

standing next to the political fugitive mister Assange

FTFY. If it had anything at all to do with rape, the Swedish government would have taken Assange up on his offer to return to the country if they promised not to hand him over to the U.S. they way they did to Mohammed al-Zari. They never have.

Even i, a right-wing Greek, couldn't plan it better!

Are you a recent national socialist, or does it run in your family?

Comment: Re:Subject to change without notice (Score 1) 222

by sumdumass (#49605737) Attached to: Chrome Passes 25% Market Share, IE and Firefox Slip

I've been pissed over this same crap for a while now. ever since they tried to do away with the tool bars. What took me over the edge was that fiasco where someone had to resign because of a political donation made half a dozen years ago despite being part of the founding team and no known instances of any discrimination ever happening during his professional career.

Since then, I took a look at chrome and pretty much install it on everything. I don't care so much about being tracked as I do about exploits and holes in the OS or browser transferring through the other and the constant complaints about crap-ware infections slowing everything down. From a stability point of view, it seems that apps created for chrome work longer then apps created for Firefox so its a plus anyways in business environments.

Comment: Re:They are burning down a city (Score 1) 194

do the down mods think they can hide the comment or something?

Seriously, when you act out in order to get attention, the attention you get is often not the type you want. A kid wanting a piece of cake at dinner will likely get an ass whooping instead of a piece of cake if after being ignored he decides to throw things off the table.

"Life sucks, but it's better than the alternative." -- Peter da Silva

Working...