Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:The American Way (Score 1) 207

...and you seize the opportunity of an exceptional event to promote your own ideas.

You mean like diving on the shooting at a school to promote gun bans? There are thousands of kids dead at the hands of criminals in the inner cities every year, some by guns, some by drugs. There's no campaign to figure that shit out. No, it makes a hell of a lot better media and sound bites when it's a nice white suburban family whose lost a child.

Comment Re:Why does gov't care about climate change protes (Score 1) 207

Knowing that these protesters are allies of the French govt on this topic, knowing that the terrorists wish to hurt the French govt AND it's people as deeply as it can, knowing that this is a major international event which will be highly covered in news world-wide, and knowing that this is a predictable predetermined time and location where massive causalities might be inflicted, it's almost too good an opportunity for terrorists to pass up.

Maybe, just maybe, you could look at the big picture and give consideration that the govt you try sdo hard to vilify is trying to keep your allies alive.

Comment Re:Propaganda. (Score 2) 207

Climate protests have nothing to do with terrorism. But large concentrated crowds of climate protesters sure would provide a juicy target for a terrorist strike, wouldn't they?

So the French govt can try to keep the would-be protesters alive and be condemned, or risk a catastrophe for which they would be condemned. At least the former is highly unlikely to result in any deaths.

Comment Re:r u srs (Score 1) 519

So in your mind, what we label "bad guys" would be those who throw homosexuals off of rooftops, stone rape victims, beat or murder women who show their face in public or drive a car, who sell women and children into sex slavery, who murder anyone who refuses to convert to the religious doctrine that requires these actions of it's followers?

Is it your position then that these people and these actions are just misunderstood? That "evil" is a false label for these behaviors?

Comment Re:fighting carbon pollution? (Score 1) 369

AND, because we now cant use the pipeline to transport the oil, there remains the trucking and rail industries moving it instead causing greater on-going wear and tear on the US transportation infrastructure, degrading the roads and bridges more quickly, and causing the price tag to repair that infrastructure to rise on a daily basis.

Comment Re:Bitcoin? (Score 2) 187

By what standard do you suggest that most people stop learning by age 25? That makes no sense whatsoever.

If you're just referring to the fact that by 25 most people have stopped going to school I'll grant you that much. Aside from the fact that its apparent many dont learn much beyond how to do keg stands while college, most everyone continues to learn throughout their lives. Even beyond retirement age. If you dont you stagnate in your career and in your relationships. And most of that learning cannot be replicated in any kind of school other than that of real life.

I commend you for taking up a musical instrument, age aside. But if you felt you needed to do that so that you continued using your mind, I'd seriously reevaluate your life.

Comment Re:Perhaps I can explain (Score 1) 452

It would be like concluding that since seat belts were intended to make you safer in a car, but don't make you safer if you get stabbed in the car, we should have no seat belts.

No, applying your logic it would be like concluding that because seat belts might trap you in a burning vehicle if used improperly we should ban seat belts.

Comment Re:does anybody do proofreading here? (Score 1) 452

That's perhaps one of the most bizarre positions I've ever seen posted on /. You're suggesting that this site exists and is successful because... its populated by pissed off nerds with latent violent tendencies who were actively drummed out of the Scientific America crowd and forced to talk to one another by a school?

Comment Re:Perhaps I can explain (Score 4, Insightful) 452

So the law was intended to make someone already guilty of breaking the law also guilty of breaking another law. It doesn't take a genius to see the inherently flawed logic there. If the criminal didnt particularly give a shit about the first, why would they give a shit about the second? It doesn't prevent there being crime at or near a school. It just makes the punishment for getting caught greater. Or do you mean to say you need an excuse to bust gang members who weren't actually caught doing something criminal?

In the meantime you have criminalized not only a legal act, but more importantly a Constitutionally protected right.

The law solves nothing while taking rights from people not guilty of anything.

It adds more harsh punishment to existing criminal activity, yes. But the very same people trumpeting the fact that gun free schools laws are great are also trumpeting the unfairness and racism inherent in the judicial system which puts 1000's of minority and underprivileged young people in prison at a starkly incongruous rate to others.

So which is it? Is it incumbent upon us to more harshly punish these gang members and make it more easy to imprison then and for longer? Or is the judicial system unfairly attacking and too harshly punishing them?

Comment Re: Safety (Score 1) 452

And on the topic of impulse control, these mass violence events are never, ever spawned by a responsible concealed carry or open carry adult. Ever. You dont hear any stories about the "intimidating redneck hillbilly back-woods jarhead nutjob" getting pissed and whipping out his firearm, because it doesnt happen. But people pass laws that both fail to stop a person who has plotted to do harm, and prevents law-abiding people from stopping them.

Comment Re:Safety (Score 1) 452

And now not only will the law be ignored by a criminal, but your dad (assuming he's honest and law-abiding) can't even pick you up from the school parking lot in your family car if he's got a pistol in it. If he were to see a criminal or a bat-shit crazy kid marching into the building with a shotgun, your dad couldnt even run in to help with a firearm without being in direct violation of the law that was wholly ignored by said bat-shit crazy kid.

Gun free zones and laws dont prevent bat-shit crazy kids from doing horrible things. But they DO make it a crime to try to stop the bat-shit crazy kid by using a firearm unless you're "authorized".

Comment Re:Perhaps I can explain (Score 1) 452

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

The no gun zone is supposed to keep guns out. We agree, yes?
The no gun zone will be ignored by a criminal who wishes to do harm. We agree, yes?
The no gun zone will prevent law-abiding, educated and responsible adults from bringing means to protect innocent people into that zone. We agree, yes?

So the law first accomplishes nothing in it's intent to prevent a criminal from committing violence, while also preventing the means by which to defend against said criminal. The law both fails to prevent harm to innocent's, and also removes their best defense. THAT makes it a bad law, and directly puts innocent people at greater risk.

Quark! Quark! Beware the quantum duck!