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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:How quickly can you bury this? (Score 1) 100

Sounds to me like their (admittedly higher) taxes have a far higher return in quality of living than ours here in the U.S. We have our tax revenue directed by politicians who are determined to make government look inept, and that's what we get.

I would gladly pay far more in taxes if we had a functional safety net comparable to other first-world nations.

Comment Re:Stop breathing (Score 1) 497

And that action, somehow, always implies increasing governmental control over our lives at best, or, at worst, flat-out handing bits and pieces of sovereignty to some international body

Climate change happens to be a very important global issue, and the only solution that is even close to practical involves international cooperation, treaties, and economic regulation. We have global economic trade and you guys aren't screaming bloody murder; global governance capable of reining in global entities that can't be assed to deal with climate change on their own isn't some big conspiracy, it's simply a recognition of reality.

So much so, one can not help but begin agreeing with the paranoics, who claim that transfer of power is the goal in itself â" and the idea of "climate change" is just means to that end. And that is my problem.

You're grasping at straws to cook up a conspiracy theory to suit your "us vs. them" nationalist fantasies. Denying reality feels good, but it doesn't make it go away.

Comment Re:So many people miss the point. (Score 1) 656

Bombs are poor tools for murdering a specific person, and most murderers want to kill someone specific.

I agree with you there, but specifically in regard to the exceptional amount of mass shootings the United States experiences, the shooters could have used a bomb instead. With the exception of the recent bombings at the Boston marathon, they didn't. The ease of accessing assault weapons in the United States goes a long way towards perpetuating mass shootings; we may not be able to prevent all future shootings with legislation, but we could do a lot better than what we have now.

Comment Re:So many people miss the point. (Score 1) 656

If it were not an outrageous lie that the majority supports gun control, the Constitution could be amended by such a majority to erase the Second Amendment.

There are already several types of guns that you are not allowed to own in the United States without rigorous licensing, the second amendment notwithstanding (machine guns come to mind). As much as I would like to repeal the second amendment, it has not stood in the way of gun control legislation in the past and it won't prevent future legislation either.

Comment Re:So many people miss the point. (Score 1) 656

You would be fighting overwhelming public opinion on that one. The proposal would justifiably crash and burn.

There may have been a time when the second amendment did cover IEDs. Luckily, the U.S. consitution is a living document and we no longer subscribe to those notions of individual arms, much like how we don't allow the average citizen to stockpile chemical or nuclear weapons.

Comment Re:So many people miss the point. (Score 4, Insightful) 656

The whole point was to prove that antigun laws are as useless and counterproductive as the war on drugs.

Gun control works quite well in countries that have decided to implement it nationwide.

Thorough gun control is analogous to bomb control. Anyone can build a bomb with instructions on the internet, but most of us don't. Why? The public has decided that bombs kill way too many people and the law (in the United States, at least), severely punishes people who, successfully or otherwise, blow up a bomb. Like all other hazardous items (with the curious exception of guns), individuals have to be licensed to handle bombs and there is probably a federal registry that lists all of them and where they store their bomb-building supplies.

People in the United States don't have lots of bombs in their houses. Why, then, would gun control enforcement pose any particular challenge?

Comment Re: Hydrogen Sulfide (Score 5, Insightful) 367

Once again I am saddened by The depths to which the Slashdot community has fallen. This used to be a technology site. Technology that could not happen without extremely advanced science.

As long as I've been here, it's been a technophile site for advertisting consumer electronics.

This isn't a matter of science being wrong, it is a matter of society not being allowed to trust a very small subset of scientists because they threaten a very profitable economic paradigm.

You've hit the nail on the head. The Slashdot community as a whole touts the virtues of science, unless it's the kind of science that discovers the uncomfortable reality about capitalism and unlimited economic growth. Then they go apeshit and cover their ears as if it makes the evidence go away.

Comment Re:Distraction. (Score 2) 262

if you don't like it, get a bus/train where you can text to your hearts delight.

Among numerous other reasons, this is why we need a far more reliable public transportation system (The nearest bus stop where I live is almost 3 miles away and it only gets service once a day). If buses and trains were commonplace, law enforcement could penalize reckless/distracted driving far more harshly and the number of drivers texting while driving would quickly approach zero.

Comment Re:Mozilla Corporation - Fighting for Freedom agai (Score 1) 123

I like the US forcing its American Way on others...

Your desire to lord over me is not on an equal footing with my desire to be free.

Those two statements contradict each other, especially when "forcing its American Way on others" means an occupying force.

It is about freedom -- of associaton, of speech, of property.

Property is not a natural right.

Comment Re:We must find out for sure! (Score 1) 412

Last I checked, the time will slow down so much that you'd never hit the black hole (event horizon), that is, before the universe will end.

For an observer outside the black hole, yes. The light bouncing off of the object falling into the black hole gets redshifted more and more, and it never quite appears to fall in.

From the perspective of the thing falling in, it passes through the event horizon without the "redshifting" delay.

Comment Re:My answer (Score 1) 525

When using an internationally frequented forum don't assume people are using the US 'definition' of America or that they are obligated to do so to be polite.

When using a site that implicitly (or explicitly, it's probably in the FAQ somewhere) caters to Americans, don't assume that the convention on what to call the United States in your home country is used here. It's not about being polite, it's about being expedient so people don't have to re-read your comment multiple times.

Comment Re:Yes. (Score 1) 482

If states can pursue and kill any hacker as they please without due process, then improperly-secured servers should be grounds for aiding the enemy.

I'm not suggesting either of these should be done, but it would level the playing field. If the sysadmins and their bosses don't like that liability, they shouldn't hook up important infrastructure to the internet.

Pascal is a language for children wanting to be naughty. -- Dr. Kasi Ananthanarayanan

Working...