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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:well.. (Score 1) 760

If that was actually the reason or giving rich people big fines, then if someone was so badly in trouble financially that even $5 was a major problem for them compared to $1000 for you and me, their ticket price would be reduced to $5. Of course, there's a minimum ticket size--that doesn't happen.

Comment: Re:well.. (Score 2) 760

Releasing of elderly prisoners on "compassion" grounds is a lie. Elderly prisoners are released on "compassion" grounds because the elderly have lots of medical expenses at the end of their life and if you keep the elderly prisoner in prison you have to pay all his medical expenses.

Comment: Re:Maybe in a different country (Score 2) 498

by Jiro (#49225071) Attached to: Mental Health Experts Seek To Block the Paths To Suicide

That happened because of the combination of 1) medical associations encouraging doctors to ask the questions (for guns alone, not for all things of similar dangerousness) and 2) doctors being mandatory reporters, so having a doctor tell you not to have guns is very intimidating because it's a half step towards losing your children.

Comment: Re:Maybe in a different country (Score 1) 498

by Jiro (#49225023) Attached to: Mental Health Experts Seek To Block the Paths To Suicide

In this context, claiming lots of "children" are shot is used to imply that because they are children, they are innocent and the fault is of someone else who made the gun available or used it irresponsibly. It is dishonest to pick an age so high that they start getting shot because they are committing crimes rather than because someone left the gun out and it looked like a toy.

Comment: Re:So what you're saying... (Score 1) 367

by Jiro (#49201039) Attached to: Come and Take It, Texas Gun Enthusiasts (Video)

...is that they're basically taking an issue that most people either didn't really know about or didn't really care about too strongly, and are shoving it into everyone else's faces, so that they now have a reason to take a stance against it?

I wonder what you think of gay pride parades. Or even gay people kissing in public.

Comment: Re:FedEx is a private business, isn't it? (Score 2, Insightful) 320

by Jiro (#49123211) Attached to: FedEx Won't Ship DIY Gunsmithing Machine

You don't seem to understand libertarianism. Libertarians believe that private actions should be legal. Libertarians do not believe that you should not complain about private actions.

Furthermore, in this case, if FedEx really is afraid of legal liability, or if the government is in other ways putting pressure on them, it's not a private action anyway. Government involvement is inherently not private.

But then I already said this.

Comment: Re:Oh bullshit! (Score 4, Insightful) 320

by Jiro (#49123173) Attached to: FedEx Won't Ship DIY Gunsmithing Machine

You don't seem to understand libertarianism. Libertarians believe that private actions should be legal. Libertarians do not believe that you should not complain about private actions.

Furthermore, in this case, if FedEx really is afraid of legal liability, or if the government is in other ways putting pressure on them, it's not a private action anyway. Government involvement is inherently not private.

Comment: Re:Darwin never suggested "survival of the fittest (Score 1) 249

by Jiro (#49073781) Attached to: Game Theory Calls Cooperation Into Question

What does this even mean?... the statement can only mean "survival of the survivers" which is a trivial obsurdity.

If I tell you a figure with three sides is a triangle, would you reply that since "triangle" is defined as a figure with three sides, I am really saying "a figure with three sides is a figure with three sides", and therefore I am not saying anything?

Comment: Re:Overblown nonsense. (Score 4, Insightful) 99

by Jiro (#48900013) Attached to: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In the Public Domain

Here's how you clearly put something in within the law: (1) You declare it public domain. (2) Now, keeping it there: You simply exercise a level of ethics even a 5 year old understands: You don't go back on your word, because (for one thing) that would make you a major fucktarded scumbag.

That doesn't work. Maybe a year later you get sued for something and the court orders that your copyright be transferred to the person suing you as compensation. Or you go bankrupt and your copyright is sold to your creditors. Or, instead of being sued, you die and the copyright goes to your heirs. And the new owner doesn't consider himself bound by your word.

Furthermore, even if none of that happens, it's still not equivalent to public domain because even if you keep your word, someone who wants to use your work has no way to read your mind and know that you're the kind of person who keeps his word. So he has to act as if you could withdraw permission at any time even if you never would.

I never cheated an honest man, only rascals. They wanted something for nothing. I gave them nothing for something. -- Joseph "Yellow Kid" Weil

Working...