Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Why do conservatives believe in various myths? (Score 1) 1100

by Ex-Linux-Fanboy (#29201433) Attached to: Global Warming To Be Put On Trial?


Now, if people read the linked articles, they would see a number of Republican lawmakers who support this kind of bunk:

  • Oklahoma Republican state Representative Mike Ritze appears to be a birther (trying to pass pro-Birth legislation), as are four Republican state Representatives--Stacey Campfield, Glen Casada, Frank S. Niceley and Eric H. Swafford--in Tennessee, as well as Fifteen Republican members of the Missouri House of Representatives
  • Republican strategist Frank Luntz denied global warming, as well as Philip Cooney, who was hired by Bush to become chief of staff for the White House (Not mentioned in the Global Warning denial article but also notable is Republican senator Jim Inhofe)
  • Not discussed in the relevant Wikipedia article, but Young Earth Creationism appears to be believed by Sarah Palin: ref 1 ref 2

I can't think of a prominent Democrat who espouse this kind of nonsense, but a fairly quick and simple search found a number of Republicans spouting this stuff.

For me to respect conservatives, conservatives need to stop this nonsense. There are a number of conservative causes I believe in, such as law and order and tort reform, but I can't support a party who openly supports fringe theories.

Comment: Why do conservatives believe in various myths? (Score 0, Troll) 1100

by Ex-Linux-Fanboy (#29199671) Attached to: Global Warming To Be Put On Trial?

A question for conservatives out there:

Why is it that conservatives believe in these kinds of myths? Why is it that conservatives, even congressmen believe in myths like the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Young earth creationism, Climate change denial, and what not. I can't think of a single conspiracy theory mainstream democrats subscribe to; while some fringe liberals believe in the 9/11 attacks being faked, this is a definite liberal fringe in the US (just as Holocaust denial is a fringe with the right-wing).

I mean, to me, I understand the "big tent" thinking of Republicans, but it has to be embarrassing to be associated with a party with senators and house members who acknowledge the above fringe theories as being established fact, instead of looking at facts and evidence in an objective manner.

Comment: Re:It's supposed to be difficult (Score 1) 863

by commodore64_love (#29174633) Attached to: "Smart" Parking Meters Considered Dumb


A once-a-month trip for groceries using my car is also better than if I had no car, which would force me to visit the store three times each week. The walking to the store might be "cleaner" but the quality of life goes down because you have to keep visiting the damn store all the time.

I prefer my once-a-month trips. It saves time and frees it up for other pursuits.

Comment: Re:Gender isn't sex. (Score 1) 1091

by Demonantis (#29174499) Attached to: How To Prove Someone Is Female?

Bad girlintrainig! You never, ever, EVER presume that just because someone is smart and intelligent they should agree with you -- or that, just because someone disagrees with you, they're either not smart or not intelligent.

Actually it has a name. It is called repugnance. You have to be really careful with it because if you argue philosophy it will be the first thing attacked. The only time I have seen a philosophy publish it as an argument was Bush's chair for stem cell research and that has to say a lot.

Comment: Re:No ARM (Score 1) 219

by drinkypoo (#29174465) Attached to: Nokia Unveils Its First Netbook

I've seen 810s on eBay in allegedly good condition for ~210 shipped. People still pay as much as $300 though. For a device with that little screen, it is a chunk of change!

If I could get one in good shape for $200, I would do it. Maemo seems totally adequate, and I want something small with internal GPS. Weren't we supposed to be seeing a "rash" of ARM-based netbooks running Android by now?

Comment: No, it is not (Score 1) 640

by WindBourne (#29163555) Attached to: Mexico Decriminalizes Small-Scale Drug Possession
Look, back in the 70/80, we did the kind of decriminalization on pot. I was part of that. My dorm floor was bringing in a BALE of pot a week at NIU and selling it . Why? Because the price DOUBLED overnight to450 for a lb of maui wowie, when police announced that they would not pursue small amounts. we could easily hide the bail. All that was needed was to test for paraquat. What will happen now, is that Mexican gang will get MORE MONEY, so they will expand efforts in Mexico making things wore. Decriminalization is the WORSE thing that they can do. It should legalized.

Comment: Re:Close the borders (Score 1) 337

by CrimsonAvenger (#29163469) Attached to: Developing World's Parasites, Diseases Enter US

First arrivals are technically immigrants, yes, but usually get the benefit of aboriginal status.

You are assuming that modern Native Americans were "first arrivals", rather than, say, the descendants of the third wave that wiped out or conquered the previous two waves. A shaky assumption at best.

The fact that the North American governments are silly enough to give "special" status to some people who claim to have been here first doesn't make someone who came here by way of Siberia less an immigrant than someone who came here by way of Ireland.

Personally, I'm tired of the distinction. We conquered the Amerinds. Before that, they conquered each other. There is little, if any, evidence that any particular group of Amerinds were the "first arrivals" in any particular place.

Get over it.

Comment: Re:That's what unregulated capitalism does (Score 1) 812

by rohan972 (#29163435) Attached to: IBM, Other Multinationals "Detaching" From the US
Free market capitalism by definition exists within a regulatory framework. You specified improved regulation rather than more regulation, so the only possible answer to your question is yes. In some cases, improved may mean less.

As a somewhat offtopic aside, I see the creation of money supply through fractional reserve lending as something incompatible with the ideal of free market capitalism. I see the provision of a stable currency as the governments role, a responsibility and power that ought not be handed to private banking corporations.

Comment: Let me defend the Wikipedia here (Score 2, Insightful) 192

by Ex-Linux-Fanboy (#29094835) Attached to: English Wikipedia Reaches 3 Million Articles

Let me quickly defend the Wikipedia here: Yes, the deletionists are annoying. However, there is a reason why "non-notable" articles are deleted: To minimize the number of articles that have to be watched to make sure spammers and vandals don't damage the articles.

Every time someone makes an article, that's one more article admins have to baby-sit. Even with thousands of people looking for spam and vandalism, there's a lot of subtle vandalism that gets in under the radar.

If every single high school or every single garage band or every single webcomic had a Wikipedia article, it would strain the admins ever more.

It's amazing that admins are able to keep the vandalism under control as much as they have been able to. Wikipedia is an Alexa top 10 site (I can't say the same for Slashdot, not by a long margin), and its purpose is to provide useful information for readers. Which is does very well. Yes, the Wiki is imperfect, and, yes, it has admins who have power trips, but the system works.

Comment: Removing Microsoft Tax doesn't just apply to Linux (Score 1) 318

by Ex-Linux-Fanboy (#29067171) Attached to: Danish FreeBSD Dev. Sues Lenovo Over "Microsoft Tax"

As someone who uses Microsoft Windows as my primary OS, the issue of removing the "Microsoft Tax" just doesn't apply to people putting Linux on their laptop. It also applies to people, like myself, who prefer Windows XP over Vista, or people who want to make a "hackintosh" laptop.

The problem the Microsoft Tax is that Microsoft and computer companies choose which OS gets on people's computers, as opposed to consumers making this choice. I know a lot of people who think Linux is a type of tableware who were unhappy they had to get a new computer with Vista, even though XP has worked well enough for them and Vista ran like a slow pig on their computer.

Indeed, I'm glad I got a Linux laptop, because, while Linux didn't work for me, I was able to choose to put XP on the computer without having to pay for a copy of Vista I would never use.

I never cheated an honest man, only rascals. They wanted something for nothing. I gave them nothing for something. -- Joseph "Yellow Kid" Weil