Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Not clear (Score 1) 3

by BarbaraHudson (#49795717) Attached to: George W Bush wanted to officiate at gay wedding.
A non-denial denial:

But on Tuesday, Freddy Ford, a spokesman for Bush, denied those reports.

"While President Bush is indeed friends with Bonnie and Helen, he doesn’t recall making such an offer," he said in an e-mail.

If he hadn't made such an offer, you can be sure that he would remember that "I made no such offer."

Comment: Re:This is how organized religion dies (Score 1) 620

by BarbaraHudson (#49795693) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage
Here's the beginning of that comment:

Multiple lovers maybe, but multiple primary partners? I doubt that, personally. I don't think mere lovers need to be recognised in law. I don't see the case for it.

So the main thrust of the question was NOT about inheritance. Your question of multiple primary partners being recognized by law was answered several times.

But if you go up a bit, the discussion was not about inheritance until you tried to throw out roadblocks (changing the goalposts) after I pointed out you were wrong about the the existence of polygamy, there and elsewhere.

And the answer is obvious as far as inheritance is concerned, unless there's a will that specifies otherwise; the communal property remains communal. Doesn't matter if there's just one partner or more still living, so what's the big deal? Did you think before asking that question?

Comment: Re:"nutritional facts" - chocolate IS good for you (Score 1) 236

NOT bringing your loved one at least some chocolate on Valentine's day can be bad for both your physical and emotional health. Negative physical effects can include sore back from sleeping on the couch to pneumonia from sleeping in the dog house, as well as bruising from flying saucers (and cups and plates and anything else handy) to not being able to have sex until you atone :-)

Comment: Re:Misnomer (Score 1) 387

If you're going to take my 2-year-old car and stick half a tank of diesel in it, you can at least help conduct an experiment to see if my thinking as to the appropriate solution is right. Turns out it was. Common sense at the time would have been to drain the tank (after cursing them out for being so negligent). I figured that common sense is often wrong, and that the gasoline pickup, which floats in the tank, so why not just fill it up with gas and drive?

It beats having to properly dispose of half a tank of diesel contaminated with the gas that was left at the bottom of the tank, and it's cheaper. Plus, I was not getting out of bed at 2 am to deal with this.

Comment: Re:This is how organized religion dies (Score 1) 620

by BarbaraHudson (#49793519) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage

Feel better now? You asked a very specific question, I gave an answer, plus a supplemental answer, based on verifiable facts.

The US already has de facto bigamy. It's even on TV - see Sister Wives - and this court judgment striking down the ban on bigamy Mostly, it's being ignored because the laws might not survive a constitutional challenge. So, that's how US law handles bigamy, and you could have found this with the easiest of searches.

Next time, instead of asking a question to score points, how about you do a little research first :-)

Comment: Re:Go for it (Score 1) 20

by BarbaraHudson (#49793405) Attached to: Survey - George W. Bush more evil than Stalin, Mao, Lenin

Oops, should have said "just after an economic boom". Sorry. And honestly, I wouldn't even execute Hitler or anyone else on the list. It's not a moral or ethical question - more along the lines of "why bother?" When all the arguments are said and done, it's more bother than it's worth. The dead won't sleep better in their graves. The living won't get closure (what a stupid idea). So, aside from revenge, why bother? It's simply not worth the hassle. Repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results is as nutty as some of these people.

Comment: Re:Misnomer (Score 1) 387

Diesel is actually going to remove less lubricant from parts than gasoline. Back in the days of carburetors, it wouldn't to any more harm than when you have a sticky pushrod and pour a stream of automatic transmission fluid down the carb while modulating the throttle to keep it from stalling, or doing the same thing with a pint of water to blast carbon buildup in the cylinder head(s) to stop engine run-on from hot spots.

Besides, waiting for the AAA to have a car towed in the middle of the night during a snow storm when the person has things to do isn't the best option. And it doesn't require you getting your hands dirty, so what's the big deal?

Comment: Neil deGrasse Tyson has another brain fart (Score 1) 245

From the Sidney Morning Herald:

In the search to find the high-paying jobs and industries of the future, Neil deGrasse Tyson has an idea for a novel solution. How about a militarised space race to Mars?

More specifically, the famed American astrophysicist says that if he could just get China's leaders to leak a memo to the West about plans to build military bases on Mars, "the US would freak out and we'd all just build spacecraft and be there in 10 months".

Ignoring the fact that the US and China (and over 100 other countries) have signed the Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits establishing military bases on other planets, just who would you be defending from / attacking from a Mars military base? Martians who want a second War of the Worlds?

Comment: Re:Which tests were more or less accurate? (Score 1) 37

by BarbaraHudson (#49790129) Attached to: Gene Testing Often Gets It Wrong
The article says it's the interpretation. So does the summary. You can't say it's a vague article if you didn't read it. The actual article gives the hard numbers.

This isn't the first time either - up here investigative tv journalists sent samples from each test subject to several different labs and the companies refused to be interviewed to explain why the results came back different depending on which company did the test.

Comment: Re:Headline versus article (Score 1) 37

by BarbaraHudson (#49790079) Attached to: Gene Testing Often Gets It Wrong
And what is the impetus for collecting more data? It's not because the tests and their interpretations are giving accurate results all the time, that's for sure.

An investigative TV news program here did their own study - sent samples from the same people to different labs, and got back different results. The tests do often get it wrong.

Comment: Re:Not the testing, the interpretation. (Score 1) 37

by BarbaraHudson (#49789989) Attached to: Gene Testing Often Gets It Wrong
Gene testing results are open to interpretation. What to do with the results is also open to interpretation, by both doctors and the patients. Times change, improved processes will result in different interpretations based on better knowledge of the weight each gene variant should be given.

Computer Science is the only discipline in which we view adding a new wing to a building as being maintenance -- Jim Horning