Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 398

And modded redundant, nice... please mods, if you think that post was useless, continue to waste your points to mod this post down as well. If you do, we allI know for a fact you are a useless waste of a human meatbag so at least we can burn your semi-democratic /. mod points on a post like this...

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 398

Don't get me wrong, I am not Libertarian in any sense, I am a practical Democrat who would prefer some Democratic Socialism where it actually works.

Your examples are great *social* leaders, but not *socialist* leaders. And none has done JACK SHIT for income inequality in their countries. I guess they are Libertarians Socialists and not Socialist Libertarians... or whatever bullshit people putting labels on people decide this week...

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 0) 398

government wealth redistribution

This alone makes you socialist/communist.

For the past 35+ years we've been having a government redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to those who are already wealthy. What does that make the worthless fucking idiots who created that?

Wish I had mod points (oh wait, I do - but I already commented on this thread multiple times...) This is my favorite statement from this discussion so far.

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 398

Yeah, his argument is ridiculous. Socialists and Libertarians are just about as opposite on the spectrum in any ways that count as you could think of. The only commonality he had in his point was a total coincidence with different motivations, since Bernie's are (relative) Pacifism and privacy and Rand Paul is into isolationism and small government.

Though I disagree with your statement on Cruz "he too is opposed to an adventurist foreign policy." He wants to carpet bomb Syria and approves of torture if it gets results. I'm pretty sure those are not Rand Paul's positions.

Comment Re:Hammerheads in Vermont (Score 1) 398

Wait, what? We have the highest economic inequality in the last 100 years (and worse, in some ways). The last 40 years have basically been one right center economically conservative president after another (if you look at the math, Clinton did more to contribute to it than either Bush). Who's "choices" will be taken away by moderately raising taxes on those in the very top tax brackets? Trump, for example, says he wants to "make America great again", when if you look at it his definition of great (the economic boom of the 50s-60s) had a top tax bracket of 90%.

If you want a proven fiscal conservative and moderate social liberal, you should be supporting Hillary. None of the Republican candidates have the slightest clue what their back-asswards ideas will do to the US economy (and most people who actually have a clue say they will be disastrous). At least with Hillary you will get more of the same from the last 40 years.

I say that with the opinion that the majority of the country's social issues over the the history of the US have at their root cause economic inequality. Crime rates, educational imbalances/opportunity, racial inequality/bigotry, health care, and obviously significant poverty have been exacerbated by the fact that the top 0.1% has made more money than the bottom 50%. And they are just accumulating it for apparently no reason other than to keep score. The fact is, if you have something to live for and aren't just surviving day to day, you are a lot less likely to risk your life and future committing property crimes. But Republicans seem more willing to pay $50,000 a year to incarcerate a poor person than pay them a living wage (which is less than $50,000).

I wish we could get someone like Sanders in as President, and put the tax brackets back to where they were in 1960, fix the ridiculous capital gains rate, etc. Given the current divisiveness in US politics that probably won't happen. So we're probably still screwed for the foreseeable future...

Comment Re:Apple is doomed (Score 1) 428

Most people I know switch back and forth between iphone and android phones regularly.

And most people I know are religiously tied to one or the other (and the older they get, the less they want to change). ie. anecdotes are useless.

Apple is making lots of money because they have no competition on the iphone side while there is lots of competition on the android side but as everyone upgrade every few years, it would only take a couple years of people starting to prefer android (like me and many of my friends) for their profit margins to start to erode

And you don't think that's significant? Android's price advantage is due to the cutthroat competition that I mentioned in my previous post. What will happen when HTC, LG, Sony, etc give up on the market because it's not profitable? You will have Samsung on the high end and a couple Chinese companies on the low end. And who knows, once Samsung owns the non-iOS phone market, they could just dump Google and do their own thing. If that happens Android is much more at risk of irrelevancy than iOS devices...

Comment Re: What's the deal... (Score 2) 262

Regen on flat pedaling is stupid and goes along the lines of a perpetual motion machine. Much of the energy you pedal into the motor is lost in the form of heat and you won't get out what you put in.

You are thinking solely in terms of mechanics and not biology. Siphoning off a few watts on a flat pedal to recharge when cyclists are normally conserving energy for the next climb anyway and then applying it when needed most can spread out the energy expended to make things more efficient.

Try running a 5k sprinting until you can't run any more, and then walking until you recover and can sprint again vs just running at your maximum steady pace. I guarantee you the latter strategy gets you a better time.

Losses from inefficiencies of the motor could make things less ideal, though that depends on the motor and considering it certainly isn't "stupid".

Comment Re:Apple is doomed (Score 1) 428

Dairy farmers still exist, and milk isn't a particularly new product.

If people upgrade their phone every 2-3 years (and that has been the trend), there isn't a need for a "new product". Of course, Apple wants to grow and diversify so they will come up with new products, but that's not strictly necessary for a business to succeed.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Mr. Watson, come here, I want you." -- Alexander Graham Bell