Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Citizen of Belgium here (Score 3, Funny) 1266 1266

come to america, people are still complaining about things that happened 150 years ago!

Well, I'm still angry that everyone seems fine with the treason Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and the others committed! Yes, the Royalist patriots will rise again! First New England, then the rest of the USA!

Comment: Re:Funding (Score 1) 169 169

My estimate is that this will happen in 2050. NASA is saying more like 2035, but I don’t have faith in Congress to fund them.

I, in fact, hope that NASA does not fund a manned mission to Mars. Spending billions of dollars to send people to Mars so they can hide in a hole in the ground praying that the next re-supply mission will get through is a complete waste. Anything useful a human can do on Mars can be done by a robot for much less money and loss of life.

The 1960's called. They want their arguments for not sending a man to the moon back.

Comment: Re:My personal journey on this issue (Score 1) 389 389

I became anti-corporatist.

So you have no objections to sole proprietorships or partnerships? Only corporations? How strange.

Why is this strange? Sole proprietorships and partnerships have to be more careful since they do not have limited liability. A corporate charter grants many rights not enjoyed by companies owned by individuals or groups without a corporate charter.

Comment: Re:Poor guy never answered the complaint (Score 1) 389 389

I've never understood that whole "you lose if you don't show". This isn't about who ate the last cupcake, it's a point of law. If there's an established law, then shouldn't the accusation be moot?

How else could it possibly be? If the judge (or jury) hears only one side, how can they possibly consider the other side? Your position is literally irrational and disconnected from reality.

Thank you. I just discovered my new sig.

Comment: Re:Which of course has nothing to do with... (Score 1) 409 409

He might be, but no one is new to the AC trolls shitting all over other people's posts from the shadows.

Tell me little one, what is your post history? Oh that's right, you don't have one.

So to judge me based on a criteria you go out of your way to not have is at best hypocritical and at worst discietful.

As I assume you're proobably the recurring AC troll that follows me around everywhere, you're just a liar. You say stupid shit all the time and who is going to judge you for it?

I won't because unlike you, I don't have any interest in sniffing your panties.

And no one else will because they can't keep you fucks straight.

People like you provide NOTHING of value to the community. You just go around spreading negativity, take no responsibility for anything, and trolololol.

There are plenty of ACs posting plenty of crazy things. You do not have some sort of AC stalker. Please. For the good of us all. Take your meds!

Comment: Re:Comparing apples to miniature oranges (Score 4, Funny) 409 409

Based on the cube law, you'd expact the average female weight to have increased almost 10% as a result ((65/63)^3 = 1.098).

Increased height accounts for more than half of the weight gain noted in the study.

So, you started your analysis by assuming a spherical human?

Comment: Of Course (Score 1) 399 399

"Of course I do not give a shit what Ray Ozzie says!" says Foobar of Borg. Seriously, though, why would anyone give so much weight to his opinions? I surely know at least as much about computers and computer networking as he does. I just don't have any kind of public venue to state my opinions (other than Slashdot, which is not really that public a venue). Of course, I'm sure I also know a lot more from an experiential point of view about fornicating than he does, but no one is going to be posting anything about that any time soon. Rule 34 is bullocks.

Comment: Re:One time experience? (Score 1) 441 441

We're talking about Jews, here—there's a difference: One takes things out of your house but the other takes you out of your house.

while were at it .. Fat Disgusting White Women. the ones who smell like sour milk cuz they cant properly clean between all the rolls of fat. theyre niggers too. their kids are always half black with their poofy shitty nappy hair. when you see em out in public you knwo what you never see with theM? thats right, the baby-daddy. and you never will. he was just a sperm donor. he found another fat disgusting white woman to fuck, or maybe one of those black women who acts all militaristic like she grew up in boot camp even though she didnt. really whats wrong with these fat chicks? they never heard of birth control or somethin? they think the ghetto nigger is gonna stay with them? they think anybody wants to be seen with them? fuck. just like the 350lb women who spend a lot of money to get their hair permed. what the fuck for? you cant polish a turd. they think men say "well her hairs nice so ill ignore the digusting rolls of lard that id need a bag of flour to find the wet spot in"?

While I find your ideas intriguing, please don't write a newsletter. No one will subscribe to it.

Comment: Re:wow, you have no idea about GLBT issues (Score 5, Informative) 671 671

India's views on homosexuality are amongst the most hostile on the planet

India's views on inter-racial marriage, hell even marriage within the same race (as it is socially defined) but outside of your own caste is the most hostile on the planet. For that matter, India's views on just about every social issue are extremely hostile. They make the US look like a bastion of liberal tolerance.

Comment: Re:New classification needed (Score 2) 671 671

We need a new legal category, Asshole. Beyond Guilty or Not Guilty the Asshole standard would be added after guilt or innocence so we could find someone was Not Guilty but still an Asshole.

But then, all of Congress would be in prison. Somehow, I don't think they'll pass something like that.

Comment: Re:Phony studies? How would he know? (Score 1) 1237 1237

With all of these politicians, I'm never sure if they actually are so ignorant to reject science out of hand, or if they are so self-serving that they simply lie about what they actually believe in order to win votes from people who really are ignorant. I tend to think it's the latter, and that that is more despicable.

When it comes to politicians and lawyers (of course, there is considerable overlap), you can always count on the more despicable option.

Comment: Re:This is not surprising at all... (Score 1) 1237 1237

If a creationist says that the Oort Cloud is unscientific, people mock them. But the reality is, it doesn't follow a single tenet of the scientific method. It exists purely because without it, the presence of comets in the solar system would prove that the solar system is too young. So a theoretical "comet-holding" cloud is invented out of thin air because long ages require it, not because of any sort of observation or because the facts led anyone there.

Funny, I thought the Oort Cloud hypothesis had something to do with the existence of long-period comets, their period being easily calculable according to orbital mechanics (but then you probably don't believe in that, either). What's next? Denial of detected background radiation since it is evidence of the Big Bang?

Beware the new TTY code!