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

 



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

Comment: Re:WWJD? (Score 1) 1168 1168

>It's quite valid in terms of history up until the last few decades.

No, marriage has always been a civil utility, sometimes administered by the church.

It doesn't make sense to claim that civil marriage is a recent concept when cultures older than Christianity itself had civil marriage millennia ago.

Even the USA we've always been able to go down and get a civil marriage license signed without church involvement, and that's how it should remain.

Comment: Re:WWJD? (Score 1) 1168 1168

I much prefer the personal-liberty approach: let people do what they damn well please in their personal lives, and don't have government-administered marriage at all.

Yeah, you've veered off into forcing "freedoms" onto people who do not want them!

I like my government-administered marriage just the way it is, and I'll try to fight you shoving your "personal-liberty" on me every step of the way. Don't want a government recognized marriage contract? Don't get one! But don't try to take it away from everyone else!

Comment: Re:WWJD? (Score 5, Insightful) 1168 1168

If you think marriage is a religious ceremony, then you have a very poor grasp of human history.

Every culture has marriage ceremonies, because every culture benefits when 2 people come together and raise their children as a family. Some southern African countries allowed lesbian marriage, some south American countries allowed male homosexual marriage, some south Asian cultures allowed atheist marriage... The only thing all marriages have in common is the bonding of 2 or more people for the sake of bonding their families. Sometimes this is done to provide offspring, sometimes to make peace between warring tribes, and sometimes simply out of love.

As to your further implication that adopted children are inferior to your own genetic seed, that's pretty much rejected by everyone and you won't find it useful in pushing through any laws. Adoption by homosexuals is hardly something today's foster children fear, rather for many it is their best hope.

Comment: Public School therefor Public Domain (Score 1) 351 351

Government agencies like NASA cannot charge for distribution of materials they create - all government documents are public domain.
Public Schools are government agencies.
If student and teacher works belong to the schools, they are public domain works.

Comment: Re:Um, DUH? (Score 1) 158 158

Yeah, safe to say, I'm not friends with those people.
Facebook is a great tool for networking with my friends and family, but why would I want to network with thousands of strangers who just hassle me with stories from "some guy they know"? I already have a /. account.

Comment: Re:What the actual fuck... (Score 1) 1130 1130

I'm assuming that taxes will have the same effect on rich people the always have: very little. Your assumption that returning to the tax rates of the previous century will break something (when dropping those taxes did nothing at all) is the one that requires further proof.

And yes, the republicans have filibustered most attempts at defining our spending over the last 4 years, but there's an act of congress that addresses spending and has budget in the name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011

I personally don't care for Obama much, but partisan hacks like yourself are exactly the reason this country is in trouble in the first place. You spend your time worshiping Bush rather than addressing real issues, which forces me to defend Obama rather than deal with his very real flaws. Attack him for something bad (drone strikes, wiretapping...) and we've can try to make progress. But continue to attack him for the mess Bush left and you're just wasting everyone's time.

Comment: Re:What the actual fuck... (Score 1) 1130 1130

I have no idea what point you are attempting to push for here, unless this is pedantry for its own sake.

1. I said debt, but I did not say national debt, and I also referred to it as spending in the same sentence. All spending is debt, until you offset it with revenue. If you fail to offset it, it will become deficit spending which contributes to the national debt, but that's really off-topic since we're talking about spending without regard to government revenue, only in comparison to household income.

2. I addressed the financial solvency of the federal government:
  A. We could immediately raise taxes to a 40% average (and let's argue whether we should get there by raising Romney's taxes to 45%, or by raising mine to 65%...)
    B. We could cut all military spending, which accounts for half our budget.
Implicit in this is the idea that we could actually use some mix of the two, where we raise taxes to repair the roads we've let rot over the last decade, and simultaneously draw-down military spending until we only outspend 4 or 5 of the next-most-powerful militaries, rather than the top 20 as we do now.

3. Your claim that the government is insolvent is belied by reality, where our government can still sell bonds at a lower interest rate than anyone else in existence. Why do they have a better credit rating than you can ever hope to achieve, if they understand math so much worse than you? We are deficit spending currently, but that was also the case the last time we had a Bush run up the bills, and Clinton turned that around. There is every indication that Obama is turning this around, even with Boehner doing his very best to prevent a recovery. Assuming that we can keep the pressure on to get millionaire tax rates matched to my tax rate, we should be able to increase revenue and decrease spending until we are again paying down the national debt rather than building it up.

Comment: Re:easy (Score 1) 171 171

Sorry for ruining the moment! I didn't get the reference because none of the most important words are the same, so I think we can classify it as "obscure."
Perhaps next time you can help a nerd out by citing Doc brown or something. That's probably the least quotable line in the whole trilogy to start with, because who even said, "heavy" beside McFly? I barely got the humor when I was watching the movie, let alone out of context.

And there are people who have propose shrinking matter as a valid hypothesis to replace expanding space, so there's no way to tell within a thread who thinks its funny, and who really believes in it. The math simply does not bear out when you look at how many forces are effected by particle size, unless you assume there is a constant (but changing over time) force linking weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force etc., but somehow not not gravity.

Comment: Re:What the actual fuck... (Score 1) 1130 1130

It's a comparison between gov't spending and household income, not gov't debt and income.

Yes, and as I said, it's an invalid comparison because they switched types of averages halfway through.
Government spending is 54K per household, while mean household income is 127K. Government spending per household is 40% of household income, not 105%.

There is a comparison between mean and median, but that can still be used to make a valid point about the fairness or desirability of our current state of affairs.

Indeed, and what valid point about fairness or desirability do you draw from the fact that median income (the middle class, if you will) is so very, very far below mean income?

Comment: Re:What the fuck... (Score 1) 1130 1130

First, you're comparing median income, to mean debt. The mean debt per person is 20257.23, while the mean income is 48520.90, So government spending is roughly 40% of our money, not 105% of our money.
We are deficit spending in that we collect 13% taxes from folks like Mitt Romney, leaving a gap of 27% unpaid (my income is below median, so I pay 30% in taxes, leaving 10% unpaid).
But that's more an issue of accountability rather than out of control spending - we can pay 40% taxes to cover our spending, we just choose to borrow from China instead.

Besides which, the deficit spending can be traced to our multiple wars and our nuclear warhead bunkers and our troops idling in Europe and South America (not that they're not working, just, what are we accomplishing with bases in germany and panama, exactly?).

We could easily stay within the 20% collected, if we simply stopped spending half our money creating terrorist, without cutting roads or schools or social security.

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

Working...