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


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Parents should be liable (Score 1) 254 254

It's hilarious that you've deluded yourself into believing that your desperate little attempts at changing the topic might actually have some sort of significance.

Here, have a reality check: unlike you with your pitiable fixation on selective quoting, most of the rest of the page is actually managing to talk about about the topic of TFA, the literally life-and-death issue of the recent rise in entirely preventable diseases killing people, traceable to the equally the recent impact of antivaxxer lunacy on public health.

*yawns again* I suppose this is what I get for feeding a troll. No more food for you from me. Toddle off back under your bridge and starve.

Comment: Re:Parents should be liable (Score 1) 254 254

Do you have any evidence that shows that 'can't' is less dangerous than 'refusal?'

Easy, what are the numbers of anti-vaxxer morons vs. the numbers of people who have actual medical reasons not to vaccinate? Dimes to dollars the former is more numerous than the latter.

Even if anti-vaxxers aren't more numerous, they have already had demonstrable negative impact on public health, as shown by the obvious fact that infectious diseases were not recurring in the population prior to the recent rise of anti-vaxxer lunacy.

Comment: Re:Parents should be liable (Score 1) 254 254

*yawn* All of which is why I said almost every other case. Do at least try to keep up.

Since you obviously need these things spelled out, none of your three Ever-So-Significant points are the direct causes of otherwise perfectly preventable deaths.

Since you seem to need this spelled out too, we weren't discussing people who can't get vaccinated, we were discussing people who can get vaccinated but who are idiotic enough to refuse.

Got any other nits to pick, or would you like to try staying vaguely on-topic for once, instead of these pathetic attempts at derailing?

Comment: Re:Parents should be liable (Score 2) 254 254

Since you're obviously an antivaxxer moron, I'll spell it out.

In almost every other case, the bad effects of bad parenting stop with the kids.

But in this case, their precious little walking sacks of infection can toddle off outside of home septic home and spread their diseases far and wide.

And if you don't think that's a problem that needs solving, you don't think at all.

Comment: Since the rewards are _air_miles_... (Score 1) 54 54

...I would've thought that fact alone would be enough to discourage anyone (who's not actually suicidal) from stuffing around with onboard systems.

After all, if you win air miles, aren't you and/or friends & family that much more likely to be onboard when a hacked system goes titsup?

Or am I giving the average hacker too much credit for common sense?

Comment: Re:Qualifications (Score 1) 479 479

Gee, I wonder why you didn't just type "resume female name acceptance" into Google. That'll get you a whole slew of citations.

Why didn't you do that utterly trivial task, instead of shooting, er, downmodding the messenger?

It couldn't possibly be because you can't handle the truth? Naaahhh....

Here, silly little AC, since you'd rather go LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU than type four measly words into Google, have some citations.


These are far from the only ones out there. If only you could be bothered to look.

And just for a bonus, here's a citation (from those same four simple words you can't be bothered typing into Google) that shows racism biasing hiring in the same pervasive, insidious ways sexism does.

Comment: Re:Null hypothesis (Score 1) 556 556

Nor do most of the people who profess a belief in God, Allah, or Jehovah. What's your point?

Oh you silly little anonymous coward you. You're not seriously arguing that religions don't think that being religious is morally superior to being atheist? Seriously? I could start quoting chapter and verse from various "holy" books, but I'd wear out the keyboard. And I do have this thing called a life, which is why I won't be bothering with any further replies. (I don't usually feed anon!trolls, but just this once, since I'm having a quiet few minutes for a change...)

And it's perfectly possible to hold a high political office without believing in God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]

*dying of laughter* Oh really? Get back to me when there actually IS an atheist US President. FYI, I only had to go 3 entries down your US list to see someone "who was nearly denied his position because of his atheism" (Yes I'm talking about the US, I'm in the US, as I'd be willing to bet that the US has the largest number of Slashdot readers/subscribers.) Name one person who was ever even nearly denied US political, legal or other public office because of their Christianity. And a similar list of "Religionists in politics and law" would be long enough to choke any browser cache: could that be any more of a comprehensive category?

And you and I both know that it is a remarkably small minority of Christians[/Muslims] who are doing anything of the sort.

I see even you don't deny that religious extremism is the motive that drives religious extremists to extreme actions to restrict others' rights - up to and including murder. (Yes I do hold similar opinions of Muslims as I do of Christians: fundamentalists of any religion are all irrational and destructive as each other.) And the lack of impactful, action-backed condemnation of extremists' crimes (as opposed to the bare minimum of meaningless lip-service) by their co-religionists speaks volumes.

BTW, nice attempt to shift the goalposts, little anonymous coward. Since your reading comprehension is obviously so abysmal, I'll spell it out for you. I wasn't talking specifically about the WSJ article; I was replying to the previous poster's question, the one I quoted at the beginning of my answer. Do at least try to keep up! ...Aaand that's my annual anon!troll feeding over. *yawns, shrugs and ambles off*

There are never any bugs you haven't found yet.