Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Governments way to admit that bitcoins are... (Score 3, Insightful) 100

by ArmoredDragon (#49377183) Attached to: Silk Road Investigators Charged With Stealing Bitcoin

I think what this might go to show is that a lot of drug enforcement officers are corrupt and keep a lot of the money they find in drug busts. Unlike what otherwise happens with loose cash, bitcoin allowed their activity to be traced.

That, along with the fact that a lot of police don't want drugs legalized, kind of hints that they get a lot of revenue from drug busts, while funding the busts themselves with taxpayer money.

Comment: Re:Only Republicans are too stupid... (Score 5, Insightful) 74

by ArmoredDragon (#49368227) Attached to: FCC Chairman: Net Rules Will Withstand Court Challenge

This isn't government control of the internet, and government control of the internet would be a very bad thing. How long do you think unbreakable encryption would last if the government had control? The FBI is already starting to take up a position that they want to ban it entirely.

Comment: Re:Your analogy is slightly flawed (Score 1) 147

by ArmoredDragon (#49342421) Attached to: Draconian Australian Research Law Hits Scientists

That doesn't make any sense. Nobody is trying to escape capitalist countries to get to communist ones (unless they're some kind of wanted felon or something.) It always has been the other way around, which is why communist countries have to forbid their citizenry from leaving, and was the entire purpose of the Berlin Wall.

Comment: Re:Hasn't been involved with Greenpeace since 1985 (Score 1) 573

You misremember.

Southern Democrats were more pro civil rights than Southern Republicans, and Northern Democrats were more pro civil rights than Northern Republicans. But Southern Democrats were opposed to civil rights as compared to Northern Republicans, and since there were a lot of Southern Democrats there were a lot of anti-civil rights Democrats.

No, this is false. In fact, during the Civil Rights movement, the majority of those in congress who voted in favor of reforms were Republicans. There was just one major exception, which was that Barry Goldwater voted against one of the Civil Rights bills, and he voted against it because he was libertarian and he didn't want to force it upon private businesses, e.g. "We reserve the right to deny service to anybody for any reason."

Being a libertarian myself, I agree with that viewpoint, but it has nothing to do with racism. If I owned a business, I wouldn't deny service over race. But I would deny it to a gangbanger who comes in with baggy clothes hanging so low that you can see the brown stains on his whitey tighties. I've actually that walk into a used car dealership I used to work for, and this person was asking to be financed for a used car, with the immediate answer being no. Yes he was black, but race wasn't the reason for it. Still, I'd be pretty pissed if some law forced us to offer a loan to somebody who comes in looking like he has probably never made a timely payment in his life.

At any rate, this particular opposition won Barry Goldwater the electoral votes in his home state as well as a number of southern states. However, the three presidential elections afterwards, none of the southern electorates went to Republicans. The first for that to happen (other than goldwater) was Richard Nixon, who took basically the entire nation (including left wing havens New York and California.)

You might want to read this, which consults several historians and has sources:


Comment: Re: Hasn't been involved with Greenpeace since 198 (Score 1) 573

The Dixiecrats, who favored segregation, largely became Republicans in the 70's.


What actually happened to the Dixiecrats is they essentially retired, and in their place were younger politicians which weren't pro-segregation, who joined the GOP.

And if you want a source, here it is:


Note this bite in particular:

There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Anyways don't let me get in the way of your quest to rewrite history. Remember to just keep repeating your lie enough, and it will become the truth.

Comment: Re:Hasn't been involved with Greenpeace since 1985 (Score 4, Interesting) 573

by ArmoredDragon (#49310935) Attached to: Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic

Can we talk about how the right endlessly defended slavery?

Take John C. Calhoun []: "he became a greater proponent of states' rights, limited government, nullification and free trade".

What does this have to do with today's right? John C Calhoun was part of the same party that Obama is now part of. And no, the parties didn't switch spectrum, rather all of them have changed their stances on certain subjects. Remember it was still the Democrats that were largely opposed to civil rights during the 50's and 60's (for example, it was a Democrat governor who called in the national guard to keep black students out of Central High School in Arkansas.)

The biggest change a lot of people refer to happened during the 80's under the Raegan. Prior to Raegan, Democrats were staunchly opposed to communism (Kennedy and Johnson for example) and somehow the modern Democrat party moved away from that hard line stance (Greenpeace is an example of that, and Patrick Moore cited the organization as looking favorably upon communism as an environmental solution as part of his reasoning for leaving.) At the same time, a huge portion of the US population shifted to the right, which was mainly those that were still hard-line opposed to communism and were disillusioned by the Jane Fonda types of that era.

And yes, during the 80's, communism was still a pretty serious threat to the west, it only stopped being so after its biggest backer (the USSR) decided they have had enough of it and finally dropped the Iron Curtain. And now to this day, several major Democratic figureheads like to claim that the Red Scare was just a big farce, communism really isn't so bad and just needs to be done right, etc.

However neither party has been in favor of either discrimination or slavery since at least the late 70's. But prior to then, Democrats were the pro-discrimination party, and prior to at least the 1900's they were still the pro-slavery party.

Old programmers never die, they just branch to a new address.