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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Its always been like this (Score 1) 323

Not disputing your point, but providing information: (...) It's called the Freedom to Roam.

More like disinformation, almost all significant rights to live off the land belong to the land owner. Here in Norway the freedom to roam gives you the right to do what would normally be considered trespassing in the US, but you can't make any long term campsite, cut down any trees, do any hunting and hardly any fishing in lakes and rivers without paying fees. You can fish on the coast and collect wild berries and mushrooms, herbs and flowers with relatively few restrictions but they're made to discourage any significant commercial use and would also practically make it almost impossible to live off.

It's primary function is that you can roam in nature - walking, biking, swimming, kayaking, canoeing, cross-country skiing and so on. A secondary function is that you can stay a while for say sunbathing or camping out in a tent, you can also collect dead branches and such for firewood but not leave much of a permanent mark. Being able to collect some of nature's produce is a tertiary function and usually only those resources that'd otherwise go to waste, if it's a commercially viable resource there's usually restrictions like salmon fishing or moose hunting. Living off the land pre-agriculture was very tough to begin with, within the modern confines it'd be even harder.

And you'd probably starve anyway, because most people today aren't very familiar with the old ways of preserving foods like drying, curing, smoking etc. which are absolutely essential to survive the ups and down of a hunter-gatherer society. And just the fact that you were a tribe averaging your luck out across many individuals, hopefully at least somebody caught or found something. Agriculture and domestication brought a relative stability to food supply while the natural supply is extremely seasonal.

Comment Re:What should happen but won't (Score 4, Insightful) 673

Yeah those laughable arguments also included making sure that video games are a viable medium, and granted them 1st amendment protections under the law. You know, when Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore, and company were all railing against them as "the evils causing kids to do bad things..." along with music.

Comment Re:Its always been like this (Score 1) 323

Poverty is a huge driver of overpopulation. Poor people tend to have more kids to provide for them in their later years. Countries with prosperous economies that are broadly shared tend to have much lower birth rates than poorer countries. That's because raising new humans is a lot of work; if people don't feel like they need to do that, they won't. China, of course, is an exception due to their one-child policy.

And often combined with poor access to contraception, a patriarchy where you want sons to get married not daughters to marry away and a shoddy health care system which means not all your kids might grow up. Even when those things are no longer true it takes time for culture to change and in the meantime you get a huge population bump. That's why we've gone from 2 billion people in 1927 to 7+ billion and counting.

Comment Re:sterile sex and the star trek premise (Score 1) 323

and i see this as being on the path toward the point where money/property/power etc become immaterial..

Possibly.... but probably not before several generations have gone by who will be living heavily under the control of those who will try to hold onto the older ideals, never to realize the futility of doing so before they themselves die.

Comment Re:Forced to accept cash? (Score 1) 183

Preventing death or great bodily harm is a valid legal reason to use deadly force... preventing loss of property is not. And yes, I know that there are a few jurisdictions (Texas, most notably) where it is legal to kill someone who is simply trying to steal from you, whether or not there is any evidence they are going to cause any bodily harm to anyone, but this is why I explicitly said "in general", because that is not actually the norm. A vast majority of robberies are of the "grab and dash" type... where an opportunistic robber happens to identify some property that is not adequately protected and is small enough for them to easily carry, makes a grab for it and tries to run away. If the robber has made no other threatening moves or otherwise suggested he would harm anyone if he was stopped, it is generally illegal to use lethal force to stop them.

Comment Re:Forced to accept cash? (Score 1) 183

This is why I said "in general".... Yes, I know you can do that in Texas, and of course, in all jurisdictions that I know of you *ARE* allowed to use lethal force against someone who is armed or you had reason to believe was armed, and there was some reasonable basis to conclude that they would cause harm to you if you did not surrender your property.

But if the person is not armed, or in particular has just tried to grab and trying to escape with some stolen property without ever actually threatening to harm anyone (which is a *HUGE* percentage of robberies), you are not allowed to use lethal force to stop them in most jurisdictions.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 1) 95

I'm not represented by a union.

That is highly unlikely. If you're employed by the state and eligible for a state pension it is difficult to imagine the powers-that-be would have forgotten to put you under one of their many umbrellas, and if they have then you're a special snowflake and I'll confine my remarks to the 99.999% of state employees that are union members and are part of the problem.

there is nothing wrong with the pension system as it was created

I'm sure that argument is going to have a big impact with the judge that will have to unwind who knows how many decades of corruption.

Nobody told me to hate Rauner.

No one had to tell Louis Lerner who needed to be targeted. No one had to order the Cologne police to cover up the rapes. The fact that you weren't explicitly instructed where to put your loyalties means exactly nothing to me. You know the score and you don't need to be explicitly told anything.

You're very angry

You are ruining this world and my time in it. My entire family are effectively refugees of governments run by people with your mentality. You destroy things. We are enemies. And if that's news to you then I'm pleased to have that advantage.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 1) 95

I am the original poster, and the post with the Tribune link was me as well. Honestly not sure why that went up as AC; I fully intended to put my name to it.

Rauner tried to vilify the state workers themselves and a LOT of people believed it blindly. That's what I was arguing against

As far as I'm concerned state employees deserve vilification. It's your employee pressure groups — unions and lobbyists — ripping off the system. You elect them. Your dues pay them. You vote for the politicians they need to enable all this. The only way any of this could ever get corrected is if you employees reformed the institutions that represent you, but we all know you won't. You knock back the kool-aid, hating on whom you're told to hate (Rauner, herp derp) until the whole thing lands in a bankruptcy court.

No, you deserve it. 100%.

But there's no point linking me to a paywall. Especially the Tribune.

Chrome+Ghostery hides that simplistic paywall. I never saw it, but hitting the link "incognito" does indeed reveal the paywall.

Comment Re:Forced to accept cash? (Score 1) 183

In general, deadly force may not be used to simply defend ones property, and can only be used to defend someone's life or safety. An unarmed thief who has grabbed a cash box right in front of the landlord and then tries to immediately run away is not a threat to one's life, and shooting him to stop him would be highly illegal.

Comment Re:Smart! (Score 1) 183

IF there was an actual store that did that I would go in there once a week, fill my cart up, have the cashier ring me up, bag the groceries and then flip out and storm out when they refused to take the cash

And you could do that once. The second time you'll get banned from the store. The third time they call the cops on you for trespassing.

Comment Re:paypal is not a bank and they can take your fun (Score 1) 183

Even if a bank account has $5, if one authorizes someone to do direct debits, they can suck out $1000.

In general, the banks will side with their own customers... at least in my experience. Having once been the victim of an online scam around 15 years ago, I was ultimately very happy with how quickly and efficiently my bank resolved the issue.

Comment Re:Forced to accept cash? (Score 1) 183

True enough.... Never happened, however. I think it's safe for me to say at this point that my roommate at the time was not the sort of person who would have done that any more than I am the sort of person who would do that to anyone else. Hypothetically speaking, if it had happened, I imagine I would have explained to the landlord what happened, given the landlord a money order, and moved out immediately, and chalked up the cost as a life lesson. However, I would not ever live with someone that I did not feel I could trust with my life, let alone my money, so the possibility of what you are describing had not even crossed my mind. Certainly with anyone that I do not know, I have always asked for a receipt if I am paying in cash.

Slashdot Top Deals

Hotels are tired of getting ripped off. I checked into a hotel and they had towels from my house. -- Mark Guido