Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


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:Hillary is a divisive figure *among Democrats* (Score 2) 463

She is, in fact, from the right wing of the party and could have been an establishment Republican a generation ago.

The first part of that sentence is true and tells you how far left the Democratic Party has moved. The second part is nonsense. A generation ago, Hillary was on the left fringe of the Democratic Party. She has not moved right, the Party has moved left.

Comment: Re:Last straw? (Score 1) 515

If Obama had not created instability in Syria and refused to negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq, Da'esh/ISIS would never have come into existence. The group which became Da'esh/ISIS may have existed before that, but that was what allowed it to become a "state".

Comment: Re:This should be upmodded (Score 2) 515

What you mean is he should have imperialistically intervened in a grassroots campaign to overthrow a dictator and helped that dictator suppress the wants and needs of the people.

So, it was OK for him to imperialistically intervene to bomb that dictator's security forces in order to allow a group inimical to U.S. interests to overthrow said dictator and suppress the wants and needs of the people. If we had stayed out of Libya, Gaddafi would still be in power there and ISIS would likely have never acquired the weapons it needed to rise to power.

Comment: Re:This should be upmodded (Score 4, Interesting) 515

Yes, he has a point, a point which is wrong, but a point.

While it is true that if Saddam Hussein was still in power in Iraq ISIS would not have arisen, it is also true that Obama would probably have done the same thing to Saddam which he did to Gaddafi, Mubarak, and attempted to do to Assad. That is, he would have attempted to overthrow Saddam and replace him with instability.

His failure to create instability in Egypt is a reflection of the desires of the Egyptian people rather than any indication of positive action by the Obama Administration. BTW, I am not arguing that the Obama Administration INTENDED to destabilize the Middle East, just that their policies directly resulted in that happening. I do not know what the Obama Administration intended, but I cannot imagine what they would have done differently if they intended to disable the Middle East.

Comment: Re:Last straw? (Score 3, Insightful) 515

No, the reason we have ISIS is because Obama tried to defeat Assad without actually fighting him. Obama empowered anyone who wanted to overthrow Assad in Syria to do so and provided them with some logistical support without paying any attention to what they wanted to put in his place. Further he did so without providing them sufficient support to actually overthrow Assad. He did the same thing in Libya, although there he provided sufficient support to overthrow a stable government. For that matter he attempted to do the same thing in Egypt, but it turned out that Egypt had not only a stable government, but a legitimate one (as in the people actually supported the government they had despite not supporting its head--Mubarak).

Comment: Re:Jerri (Score 4, Interesting) 515

I'm sorry but ISIS was not created by the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. ISIS was created by the "Arab Spring", when Obama supported the overthrow of stable governments in Libya and Egypt. He followed that up by encouraging the overthrow of Assad in Syria but not following through by actually bringing it about.
I will agree that Obama is doing the same thing to the Middle East that he did to the U.S. economy. And, if what Obama is doing is fixing these things I'll take broken.

Comment: Re: Authority (Score 1) 229

I have not studied this closely, but I believe that Congress could pass a law, signed by the President, defining certain aspects of their rules which would last until a future Congress passed a law overturning that law. The same is true of the laws delegating their authority.

That, at least is how I understand the legal theory. I do not think the Framers of the Constitution would agree. I am certain they would not approve of Congress delegating so much of their authority.

Comment: Re: Authority (Score 1) 229

It would be impractical for Congress to operate at the level of detail overseen by the various commissions and authorities.

Which indicates that it was the intention of those who wrote the Constitution that the Federal government not attempt to do so. If you read the various writings of those people you will discover that they thought the federal government should not get into such detail. If anything required close detail, those who wrote the Constitution thought that the laws regulating it should be written by those close to that actual detail.

Comment: Re: Authority (Score 1) 229

Having said that, the question that remains is whether Congress can delegate their lawmaking authority to some government bureaucracy.

More importantly, has Congress delegated their authority over this specific issue to the FCC? Of course, as has been demonstrated on the issue of illegal immigration (and several other issues as well), we no longer have a government of laws. The law is now whatever the President (and, in more and more cases, the bureaucrats who theoretically answer to him) says it is. Which means that it can change from day to day and person to person.

Comment: Re:fees (Score 1) 388

But that was your choice. You did not have to rent an apartment in that building. I actually lived in an apartment complex with a similar contract. Except that about 5 years before I moved out, the complex found that they needed to bring in a second ISP for competitive reasons (some people chose not to rent there because they preferred the other ISP).

Comment: Re:fees (Score 1) 388

The reason the problem is systemic throughout the nation is because the federal government encouraged this situation in the first place. The local/regional monopolies exist because of a federal law which allowed them to exist. So, the federal government abused its power by encouraging local/regional monopolies to come into existence. Now you want to reward the federal government by asking them to gather even more power to themselves?

Maybe instead we should ask the federal government to eliminate the law allowing local governments to enter into franchise agreements?

The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much.