Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:This isn't a question (Score 1, Informative) 519

by Uberbah (#49761061) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage

Why the arbitrary limit?

Lots of reasons. Because polygamy generally involves powerful men taking lots of wives, and sometimes forcing young men out of the community so they have their pick of women. And no, it's not going to even out of a few Marisa Mayers take on a few "brother husbands."

Because it creates an inherent power imbalance in the relationship - if you call your wife Sue a fat bitch she can stop speaking to you until you've done a few weeks of groveling. But if you're a polygamist, you can tell Sue that if she doesn't get over it, you'll just be fucking your second wife, Molly.

Because it takes issues that are otherwise straightforward and turns them into a mess if there is no will. If you get in a car accident and end up in a coma, your wife can make medical decisions for you. If you die, she inherits everything and has custody of the kids. But if you're a polygamist who adopted, who gets the kids...Sue or Molly? Who gets the house? Which one makes the call to keep you on a feeding tube while you're in the coma?

Comment: Re:This isn't a question (Score 2) 519

by Uberbah (#49760893) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage

Well, the marriage benefits are intended to help with child rearing.

You know gay people can have biological kids as well as adopt, right? This was always a red herring from homophobes anyway, as you never had the same Concerns over post-menopausal women or elderly couples marrying.

question of why we're extending benefits for no reason should be asked.

You should be asked if you've ever heard of the word "inheritance". How about the right to make medical choices for your partner in the event of his or her incapacitation.

Comment: To the willfully obtuse (Score 2) 519

by Uberbah (#49760867) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage

Why don't you guys demand the same equality from the moslem countries?

Why do you think they aren't?

If you guys really want equality why do you do it in the West?

Because that's where they live, dumbass. Same reason why you spent more time dealing with the laws where you live than what they are in Bumbfuckistan.

Comment: Re: Apple ][ was a great product (Score 1) 74

by cpt kangarooski (#49745473) Attached to: In 1984, Jobs and Wozniak Talk About Apple's Earliest Days

Though there was a good reason for the original compact Macs to discourage users from opening them up -- there were exposed high voltage monitor electronics in there which could give you a hell of a zap of not properly discharged.

The later all in one Macs of the 90s were better in that regard. Their user suitable parts (motherboard, drives) all were easy to get at, but the monitors and power supplies were fully enclosed.

Comment: Re:Obama, not Bush 2, responsible for ISIS ... (Score 1) 263

by Uberbah (#49741545) Attached to: Book Review: The Terrorists of Iraq

You are mistaken.

You're in outer space. The same president that's bombed twice as many Mulsim countries as Bush, the same president that tripled forces in Afghanistan over Bush levels - and arranged them to stay there through two full terms of Jeb or Hillary - the same president that joked about murdering American kids right after murdering American kids with drones, the same president that demanded the right to throw American citizens in military prisons without trial...wanted to 'cut and run from Iraq' cuz he was too liberal?

Are you out of your fucking mind?

Comment: Re:Make it more expensive ? (Score 1) 243

by Uberbah (#49741015) Attached to: Why Apple Ditched Its Plan To Build a Television

You have been modded as "Troll"

Because he's trolling.

(i don't dare to mention Apple because... my "/." karma is suffering righ now!

Whining about Apple on Slashdot is about as risky, or unpopular, as whining about socialists at a gathering of teabaggers.

but "making it more expensive" is a usual "(marketing) feature" for some brands

Nevermind that competitors charge comparable prices for comparable products.

Comment: Re: Well that was an incoherent metaphor (Score 1) 263

by Uberbah (#49723023) Attached to: Book Review: The Terrorists of Iraq

Regime change in Iraq was stated US policy, signed into law by Bill Clinton.

Never understood the point of this old saw, as Clinton never tried to invade Iraq or actively depose Saddam.

The AUMF was approved by Congress, with a bipartisan vote.

Yes, they voted for it. They didn't talk about voting for it. And the only Dem to offer an unequivocal 'I fucked up' apology is persona non gratta because he only fucked one person he wasn't supposed to.

Comment: Re:Obama, not Bush 2, responsible for ISIS ... (Score 2) 263

by Uberbah (#49722921) Attached to: Book Review: The Terrorists of Iraq

Obama's desire to abandon Iraq, to not leave a residual force resurrected ISIS/al-Quaeda in Iraq.

This revisionist history was already debunked in this thread before you decided to repeat it.

Obama wanted to extend the occupation, not end it. All that campaign talk about withdrawing within 16 months was a lie, just like his promises to renegotiate NAFTA, that any health care bill he signed must have a public option, and to close Gitmo.

All this Obama bashing from right-wingers, when he's been one of you all along.

Comment: Re:An intelligence officer? Well he MUST be expert (Score 1) 263

by Uberbah (#49722877) Attached to: Book Review: The Terrorists of Iraq

My personal theory is Saddam probably thought he had WMD

He didn't, but he wanted his neighbors to think so. If that seems like paranoia, just look at Libya and Syria. If Assad had a powerful military, it's not as likely that Saudi Arabia and Qatar would be sending armed "freedom fighters" over the border.

Comment: Re:An intelligence officer? Well he MUST be expert (Score 1) 263

by Uberbah (#49722793) Attached to: Book Review: The Terrorists of Iraq

The only thing the splurge did was get more people killed, both occupier and occupied.

and how the insurgency was defeated sufficiently for Obama to call the war over

Obama wanted to extend the war, not end it. But the Iraqis refused to let U.S. forces go on committing mass murder with impunity, so Obama had to adhere to the withdrawal timeline negotiated by Bush.

And who wants to die fighting a retreating enemy?

Comment: Whining about lawyers = dumbfuckery (Score 4, Interesting) 201

by Uberbah (#49715467) Attached to: Baton Bob Receives $20,000 Settlement For Coerced Facebook Post

The problem isn't that punitive damages are high, the problem is that punitive damages are high AND the plaintiff+lawyers get to keep it.

Whining that some money might end up in the hands of lawyers, and out of the hands of abusers (or those who insure abusers), is simply dumbfuckery. Always has been, always will be.