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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:NSA scorecard on on truth? (Score 1) 200

by JaiWing (#47912079) Attached to: New Details About NSA's Exhaustive Search of Edward Snowden's Emails

Excuse me, but when people represent coporations and institutions, they do indeed make such entities lie.
Especially, since they, as people, are not held personally responsible?

Only within the concept of Personification, namely treating something that isn't a person as if it is. An organization is not a person, even if it is comprised of people, and can therefore not make decisions, rather the people within it make decisions. The purpose of personification is to apply an attribute to the collective, namely in this case, for the speaker to imply that since some at the IRS and NSA lie, everyone at the IRS and NSA are liars which is clearly not the case. Or do you really believe of the tens of thousands of people employed by these agencies none of them have morals? If you do, remember that Snowden worked for them so that means, even though he left, he is by association also a liar?

If you were right, who are responsible for the lies then?

The people, who under penalty of perjury, knowingly made statements they knew to be false, or otherwise made the decisions that the laws were not to be obeyed by those within their organizations. You know, the people who are committing the crimes. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater may be a common tactic, but is as bad today as it was when that phrase was invented. The fact that in almost none of these cases have perjury or other charges been brought against them is a different problem that needs fixing.

An aside: if, by your statement, corporations (organizations) are not people, but are made up of people, then why do corporations get to have free speech? Organizations are not people, they are made up of people. People have free speech rights, organizations do not.

Comment: Re:No the rich are too powerful (Score 2) 376

by JaiWing (#45601609) Attached to: Fearing Government Surveillance, US Journalists Are Self-Censoring

No federal dollars that go to Planned Parenthood go toward abortion. That is already not allowed.3% of the medical services provided by Planned Parenthood go toward abortions.

97% of the medical services go toward health care related activities, including, but not limited to: STD testing, cancer screenings, birth control (again, not federal dollars), vaccinations, inoculations ....

Sorry to have to point that out.

Comment: Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? (Score 1) 1143

by JaiWing (#45381121) Attached to: EPA Makes Most Wood Stoves Illegal

I'm not entirely against this rule, but I think it should be a local law not a national one. Someone in the middle of the city burning things is a pretty big asshole; someone living in a cabin in the woods isn't causing local problems and could possibly have circumstances that make the usage more understandable -- e.g., using wood that otherwise would go to waste, or using it as a back-up fuel source in case something goes wrong in the middle of winter.

An indoor stove that burns wood or coal really is dangerous, and it's most dangerous for the people inside the house. It makes you more likely to get serious, incurable lung and heart diseases.

My sealed wood stove pulls outside air for combustion and exhausts to the outside. the only time it is open to the inside is when I load it. once every 4-5 hours. I can honestly say i breath more fine particulate matter on my commute to and from work.

Comment: Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? (Score 5, Insightful) 1143

by JaiWing (#45381097) Attached to: EPA Makes Most Wood Stoves Illegal

It also looks like this has become a minor right-wing cause. Jack-booted thugs coming to take away your wood-burning stoves, and all that.

The right wing tends to be against regulation that erodes personal freedoms. This particular rule may or may not be a good idea, but the healthy thing for society is to look at all new regulation with a healthy dose of skepticism and suspicion.

You have got to be joking. The same right-wing that is calling for anti-abortion law across all the state where they have uncontested power? The same right-wing that is taking away the right to vote in the same states?

That right wing?

Comment: Re:NOT robust at all... (Score 1) 584

um. you are saying the "bluest of the blue" (which I read as "liberal") would be more likely to agree that PRISM (or whatever surveillance program is de' jour) is acceptable? Really?
Why? Because that 'liberal' Obama (PRISM, ) is for it? Or maybe that 'liberal' Bush (TIA, Patriot Act, TSA)? which one?

This is not a conservative vs. liberal problem. This is a all government becomes corrupt problem.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the demigodic party. -- Dennis Ritchie

Working...