Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:better place for whom? (Score 2) 208

by Dragonslicer (#48667725) Attached to: The World Is Not Falling Apart

The jobless? The disenfranchised? The dispossessed? The poor, the hungry, the downtrodden?

Or is it just getting better for the corporate, the military, and everyone else who loves to lick Obama's boot?

You too can be successful! Just lick that boot! Lick it good.

This type of comment says a lot about the people who agree with it. When the headline says "The World", they only talk about the United States.

Comment: Re:Of course there is a focus on the negative (Score 1) 208

by Dragonslicer (#48667681) Attached to: The World Is Not Falling Apart

Yea the conservatives are becoming extremists. That's why I see chants of "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now", and then a guy drives to NYC and kills 2 cops.

You had conversations with these people about political philosophy? That must have been pretty interesting. Was that before or after the police officers were murdered?

Also, it seems to me that the level of anti-authoritarianism that would lead to murdering police officers is not what the Republicans typically associate with liberals.

Comment: Re:No, not "in other words" ... (Score 1) 291

by Dragonslicer (#48661843) Attached to: Hotel Group Asks FCC For Permission To Block Some Outside Wi-Fi

Perhaps this is "Corporate Assholes" trying to monetize their investment in their hotel property and make money as most businesses are created to do?

Exactly. What's up with all these people thinking that hotels shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they can to eliminate all possible competition in wireless service. Why do they hate the Free Market?

Comment: Re:Unorthodox legal tactics (Score 1) 188

by Dragonslicer (#48657213) Attached to: Uber Pushing For Patent On Surge Pricing

Rather than treating it as a future potential liability they want to send a message now to the future uberzealous seekers of the fairness: look, the price gouging is our patent protected right, secured by the laws.

A patent doesn't actually grant you the (exclusive) right to do something. Instead, it allows you to prevent anyone else from doing what you've patented. If you patent something that involves an illegal action, you can still be sued/arrested for it.

Comment: Re:Science is on the skeptical side of this debate (Score 1) 718

If someone discovers a heat source at the center of the Earth that has been increasing its heat output lately, then yes, they will have found out that it wasn't caused by human activity.

The point being made was that it's very difficult to predict what discoveries will be made in the future and change our understanding of some scientific topic.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 718

Depending on your point of view, that's actually either a better analogy than you thought, or the complete opposite of what you intended to mean. While no reasonable person would question the existence of gravity, there still isn't a satisfactory explanation for how gravity works.

Comment: Re:Not sure the FDA would be much better... (Score 1) 482

by Dragonslicer (#48634991) Attached to: Colorado Sued By Neighboring States Over Legal Pot
I certainly didn't mean to imply that it necessarily has to be the FDA. You're certainly right that this would be outside of the FDA's typically mandate. My point was just that the decisions should be made by people with the appropriate education and experience, which isn't the DEA. One post farther up this chain mentioned the FDA and AMA, but I don't think the AMA has the legal authority, which is why I also mentioned the Surgeon General. I'm not sure exactly which agency within the Department of Health would be the best for this.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 4, Insightful) 718

That's funny. The first definition on Google states "a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.", which seems to be a good fit for those who are denying global warming.

No, it isn't a good fit at all. There's a huge difference between "Hey, your models aren't making perfect predictions. It's possibly that you're incorrect about something." and "Climate Change is a liberal conspiracy to turn the fine God-fearing people of the United States into a bunch of commies."

Comment: Re:On paper, sure. But in reality the DEA makes la (Score 2) 482

by Dragonslicer (#48634507) Attached to: Colorado Sued By Neighboring States Over Legal Pot
The solution is simple, though. Congress can write a law that says that the FDA and/or Surgeon General decides how to classify drugs, and the DEA can only enforce those decisions. If the DEA really needs emergency classification authority, such a decision can be limited to a duration of 1 year before it must be approved by the FDA (of course, I can't think of why the DEA would be better equipped than the FDA to make emergency decisions).

Now if only something this logical had any chance of getting done by Congress.

Comment: Re:Enforcing pot laws is big business (Score 2) 482

by Dragonslicer (#48634297) Attached to: Colorado Sued By Neighboring States Over Legal Pot

And what means are used to detect drivers who are high on pot?

You've never seen anyone high before, have you? Detecting such drivers won't be any more difficult than detecting drivers who are drunk. The same laws most likely apply, as well, since "Driving Under the Influence" probably isn't specifically limited to alcohol.

Keep your boss's boss off your boss's back.