Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:No, obviously (Score 3, Interesting) 239

unless of course you're terrified of computers and networks, view them as tantamount to witchcraft, don't understand them, and hate and fear anyone who does. Then of course, by all means, grab your torch and pitchfork. The rest of the loonies will be waiting in the town square at midnight.

It's the whole "enhancement" idea in the law that is just so much hogwash.

Why was the crime "worse" because a computer was used? Did the victim suffer more? Was there more physical damage?

In the same vein, why does an armed robbery in many states carry an "enhanced" sentence, or even become a different crime, because a gun was used? Would a crossbow or a big knife have been any different? They're all deadly weapons.

"Enhancements" like these are an expression of fear and attempted control. It's not a matter of justice, it's a matter of trying to control people. Plain and simple.

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 686

Just so we're clear, here is a statement from an attorney about this habit of yours. You can find the same information in many places:

Putting a question mark at the end of a statement when it's meant to be a statement can still lead to liability.

Also, from a law school:

Defamatory statements can come in the form of questions as well, especially if the question implies certain facts about the person who is being questioned. For example:

A radio DJ, during an interview, asks his guest âoewhen did you stop beating your wifeâ? This question carries the implication that the guest has been beating his wife. Thus, there is a defamatory implication to the question and the guest may have a viable cause of action against the radio DJ.

Your long history of making statements similar to the one you made above, some with question marks and some without, has made your intent very clear. You don't get a pass just because you put a "?" at the end of a defamatory sentence.

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 686

Just so we're clear, this is a statement from an attorney about this habit of yours. You can find the same information in many places:

Putting a question mark at the end of a statement when it's clear that it's meant to be a statement can still lead to liability.

Your history of making similar statements with question marks makes it very clear what your intent is. You don't get a pass just because you put a "?" at the end of a defamatory sentence.

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 686

So you deny saying that women would be able to "control your behavior" and "decide whether or not you are a criminal" unless we legalize up-skirt panty shots?

Of course I do. Again with your distortions. You have extracted different portions of a discussion about the law, and inappropriately pasted them together to create a meaning I did not write or intend.

Yes, I do deny saying that, because I didn't say that. Knock off the lies and defamatory statements. They are no less defamatory posed as questions. You really don't know how that works, do you?

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 686

So you deny fantasizing about fucking "hot guys" and sharing news about women in the locker room?

As I have pointed out many times before, you like to deliberately distort and misrepresent other peoples' comments out of context.

That's called libel, and that comment of yours is a great example of it, since a reasonable person could not possibly interpret the words in the way you put them together. Putting them in the form of a question does not by itself absolve you of guilt, since it is obvious your purpose is defamation. (Even if this instance were not obvious, your recorded pattern of behavior makes it so.)

Society has rules, you know, even if Slashdot is lax about enforcing them.

Comment Re:That would be penny wise and pound foolish (Score 1) 368

By that logic we should just write off large swathes of the Netherlands.

That doesn't follow. The Netherlands don't have a choice. We do.

Dykes and berms work just fine, and we have the engineering means to keep portions of land we consider valuable dry even if the waters rise 10 or 20 feet.

That also doesn't follow. The dyke and berm system in New Orleans was being "shored up" using local, State, and Federal money, yet "somehow" a very large part of the money mysteriously ended up elsewhere, and not spent on building or maintaining dykes and berms.

The engineering and technology do work just fine... but the "system" of dykes and berms did not.

Comment Re:No shit ... (Score 1) 141

Oh, bullshit.

People exchanged something for value. It's a market.

The rest is ideology.

Utter nonsense.

Non-monetary iterms in a "market" have value because they're actually USEFUL for something... either in making something else, or turning into something else, or making your manufacturing operation more efficient, etc. That's what GIVES them value.

Carbon offsets are only "valuable" because Government says so. In that way they are like fiat money... almost useless in themselves, only useful for trading for other things.

So it's not a "market" it's government fiat, and it makes no sense to say it has values because it's a market. It isn't. Certainly not a free market, anyway.

And as an analogy to fiat money, Russia and Ukraine have already inflated it by "printing" money they didn't have.

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 686

Let me guess: you wanted to make all women look bad by acting out the worst sexist stereotypes of women, and wanted a more credible way to accuse women of being able to "control your behavior" and "decide whether or not you are a criminal" unless we legalize up-skirt panty shots?

Your "guesses" have been no better than your outright lies. Wrong on all counts.

And endlessly quoting yourself about past fabrications is... well... weird. Not that your other behavior has been exactly normal. You really do seem to live in your own little world. Which would be fine, if you just stayed there.

I think it's rather hilarious that you quote fantasies of your own that were previously shown to be wrong, to support your current fantasies. There's a name for that, too.

And thanks once again for confirming beyond doubt who you are. Icing on the cake.

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 686

Are you serious, Jane? Or are you just trying to play up your "batshit insane lunatic" cred by pretending that it's not sock-puppeting when you pretend to be a completely different person of a different gender, insisting that others call you "she", fantasizing about fucking "hot guys", and sharing news about women in the locker room isn't sock-puppeting?

WHO is batshit here?

Repeat: pseudonyms with longevity and character behind them are standard procedure on Slashdot. Sock-puppeting is not.

You have no idea what I fantasize about. You're coming off here as a complete loon. I mean serious nutcase. No apologies from here for saying that.

As per your usual habit, YOU are pretending, and projecting that behavior on others.

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 686

Or Jane/Lonny Eachus is the world's most blatant hypocrite. And since you're shamelessly bragging about being a good liar...

No, since you insist on bringing this up, let's revisit this. Because you will, just as hilariously as before, lose this one too.

You have often claimed I have been "pretending to be" a woman, mainly because I made a comment long ago that "most people who bothered to look" called me a gal. I let your snide comments slide for a long time, because I believe in giving people "enough rope".

When finally I felt it was no longer funny watching you thrash about lost in your own inanity, I deigned to explain that comment:

Yes, most people who bothered to look at the name "Jane Q. Public" have referred to me here on Slashdot as a gal. Why do you have such a problem with that?

You see, MOST people here on Slashdot ASSUME I am a "he"... and never even look at the handle to which they are replying. Which I find funny as hell, in a rather sad way. But those who DO bother to look -- the rarer cases -- are usually willing to accept it.

I have been planning on writing something about that.

You, however, look at ONLY the handle ("well, not 'only'...") and have been raising a stink about it for years now. It's a fucking pseudonym, twerp. Live with it.

Jane, you're shamelessly bragging about being a good liar.

What evidence do you have that my explanation is a lie? You already know the answer, so I'll tell everybody else: zero.

One of these days -- and there is even the possibility it will be in court -- I will tell you why I chose to use the pseudonym "Jane Q. Public". And when I do, there is a very good chance you will look pretty foolish. I am deliberately understating.

I believe in taking a long-term view of things. And lots and lots of rope.

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 686

In "Janeland", as well as Slashdotland, having a consistent pseudonym with a reputation over a period of years is perfectly acceptable behavior.

Sock-puppeting is not.

And "forgetting to log in" is no excuse. I'm ALWAYS logged in when I comment. You USUALLY "forget". Why is that?

Is figuring out how to work that beyond the ken of a physicist? Or is it, which I think more likely, not a matter of "forgetting" at all?

Thanks very much, by the way, for confirming who you are. Big Something is watching you.

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 686

This comment is even more astounding than most of your others. Not all, but most.

THIS time, you have not just misrepresented my words, but turned them around 180Â.

That's called lying, man. Just plain lying. Of course, I've caught you at it before, but it has seldom been quite so blatant.

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 686

How mysterious! Tell us more about these "deeds even more foul" than repeatedly asking you to stop your ~7 year campaign of harassing/libelling/attempted-character-assasinating/misquoting mainstream scientists and those who agree with them. I'll "get a life" when you stop.

Let's start here, from no more than a few days ago:

And once again, Jane/Lonny repeatedly [] put [] those disgusting [] accusations [] into his [] own words []. Feel free to retract them, or keep doubling down forever.

Sorry, but you lose. There is good evidence that those statements are true, and you have presented none that they aren't. You can call them "disgusting" all you like... I certainly felt the subject of those comments you linked to was rather disgusting.

Lonny, your disgusting statement was a "response" to a statement about anthropogenic global warming, which is primarily caused by raising CO2 levels. So your original disgusting statement was either accidentally or deliberately "out of context" of the statements you were replying to. Which is it, Lonny Eachus? Are you honestly confused, or are you deliberately trying to confuse others?

That was in reply to your ridiculous argument that exhaling was not an "emission". You are a complete nutcase. An exhalation is an emission in exactly the same way that CO2 from an exhaust pipe is an emission. Organic compounds are "burned" via your metabolism in an analogous way to how ethanol is burned in your automobile. Both are relatively simple organic "cycles"... the CO2 could be from corn in either case.

Your argument that exhaling cannot increase overall CO2 may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant to whether an exhalation is an "emission" of CO2. That's both dictionary AND common usage of the word. The only reason a dictionary was being cited was because you were being an asshole about it. As usual.

Anyone who's googled EPA ethanol emissions has evidence to refute your statement... which apparently "doesn't exist" and you "flatly deny" making, even as you double-down on it. ... The EPA doesn't count that CO2 in their lifecycle GHG emissions calculations...

Which is gross moving of the goalposts, because what I said was that exhalation and tailpipe exhaust are both "emissions". And they ARE counted as emissions. But you've moved the goalposts, as I have explained several times, and again just now. You don't want to admit that I was correct to call them emissions, so now you want to show that EPA doesn't count them the same in meta-calculations. That's invalid argument. And you've done that crap so many times I no longer count.

It may be true that in one technical sense I was wrong, i.e. saying EPA "doesn't distinguish" whether OVERALL emissions are cycled or not. But that wasn't MY point, regardless of what yours was. CO2 emissions are still emissions, whether from a "cycle", or not. I have a hard time believing you really believe the arguments you make. I think you have a phobia about being wrong about anything. That would explain your ridiculous, consistent fallacious arguments like misrepresentation out-of-context and moving the goalposts.

That's the same definition used by every other mainstream scientist who discusses the "'allowable CO2 emissions budget'

Proof of moving the goalposts. Because MY comment wasn't about "allowable budgets". It was about emissions... the commonly understood, technically correct, and dictionary definition of "emission". It wasn't about "budgets", nor were the words Lonny was originally replying to on Twitter.

Don't be ridiculous, Jane. I've repeatedly shown that comment IN CONTEXT.

This is hilarious. Your example above is yet again grossly out-of-context, and not even subtly.

Lonny's little bit of satire or perhaps sarcasm, was a reply to Ken's words, not Peter's. Ken's words were (are) in a screenshot, clearly visible on Twitter. Instead, you incorrectly linked to an entire article in which those words are clear down near the bottom, and can easily be not seen or TL;DRed. But the words were clearly visible on Twitter, which people cannot see here, or at your link.

So yes, yet again you misrepresented that comment out of context.

The words you so conveniently OMITTED from your immediate "context" were:

1. There are no such things as "allowable CO2 emissions". There are only "damaging CO2 emissions" and "dangerous CO2 emissions." Every CO2 emission causes additional damage and creates greater risk.

It's really sad that you omitted that from your mentions, and nowhere stated the words to which Lonny's comment was actually replying. Yet it appears pretty obvious that you found the comment on Twitter, where Ken's words were clearly visible, yet you still claimed your quotes were "in context". Lonny's comment and the comment to which it is actually a reply are easily seen on Twitter. And so DID misrepresent my words, and all evidence says it was deliberate, because you knew, or reasonably should have known, that you were NOT showing the actual context, and were misrepresenting my words in a rather horrible and deplorable way. That's called libel.

You really should know better by now. You're not "winning" these exchanges, by any stretch of the imagination.

All Finagle Laws may be bypassed by learning the simple art of doing without thinking.