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


Forgot your password?

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: We should lobby to break the cable companies (Score 4, Informative) 464

I think that we should lobby to break the cable(and other incumbent monopolistic ISPs) companies.

For example, state(and lower) prohibitions on municiple broadband systems should 'go away', and every time a cable company refuses service to a customer they should be hit with a $1k(or more) fine.

Especially with the federal government declaring it a utility.

Comment: Yet more wrong (Score 2) 125

by Firethorn (#49340201) Attached to: First Nuclear Power Plant Planned In Jordan

Not to to mention that the 'glowing lump' in Ukraine was the result of stupid testing combined with poor design, not lack of maintenance.

Arguably the glowing lump in Japan would be a better example, in that they didn't install recommended upgrades - a system to handle hydrogen generation in an overheat event and at least a few generators in a waterproof location.

Comment: Re:Economics (Score 4, Insightful) 125

by Firethorn (#49340139) Attached to: First Nuclear Power Plant Planned In Jordan

If you run it for 60 years, all you do is charge something like 1/10th of a center per kwh for 'decommissioning costs'.
2GW should produce about 15.8B kWh a year. Even excluding interest, that's $15.8M/year, $946M over 60.

If you figure that it earns 5%, that's $3.7B in 60 years, or $185M they can spend each year indefinitely doing whatever it takes to decommission it.

Comment: Re:Fuck those guys (Score 1) 568

First, hot button topic for me, it's probably not a vigilante but somebody committing self defense. The difference is that the vigilante seeks out crime to punish, a self defense shooter just happened to be on the scene.

But the bank robbers would still be guilty of murder, because under the felony murder rule, when you commit a (violent) felony, you're responsible for all deaths stemming from your crime. Since the vigilante/self defense shooter wouldn't have shot at them and missed if they hadn't been robbing the bank, it's still on them.

Now, the shooter might or might not find himself up on manslaughter charges, but that's unlikely - despite it being very hard to find a similar case(a ccw permit holder shooting an innocent party by mistake), cops routinely get off with nothing for this.

Comment: Re:Animal House (Score 1) 756

by Firethorn (#49321667) Attached to: A Software Project Full of "Male Anatomy" Jokes Causes Controversy

Anyway, I'm a dude, and I don't really like office environments where everyone walks around all day with their potty mouths set to "maximum potty". It's unprofessional and is a distraction from actual work. In my mind, the best policy is for everyone to make their best effort to keep things professional and in exchange, for people who might be offended to just chill out when there is an occasional, inevitable slip-up.

And I agree with you. However, almost inevitably when management comes down on an incident they do overkill as well, and a little bit of humor/fun in the office just makes the day go by better.

Comment: Re:Fuck those guys (Score 1) 568

Well, for one it's probably not technically a vigilante. If the crime is in progress and the bank robbers are threatening deadly force, then it's considered self defense to use deadly force to stop them. It's also still self defense to use said deadly force to protect others. I'm sorry, it's a bit of a hot button topic for me. I get a little annoyed when people call self defense vigilantism.

Anyways, in the case of self defense, where the shooter, could be a security guard, could be a customer or another teller, accidentally shoots and kills an innocent while trying to hit the robbers?

Felony murder rule still applies - the Robbers are still up on murder charges. Now the shooter? Might find himself up on manslaughter charges, but probably not. The case law isn't settled, I'm not aware of any self-defense shootings outside the home that have hit an innocent party.

Inside the home, shooting a relative or something? Generally not charged.

Comment: Re:Animal House (Score 2) 756

by Firethorn (#49318211) Attached to: A Software Project Full of "Male Anatomy" Jokes Causes Controversy

when you haven't even tried to understand the simple fucking point of what someone said.

Oh, I recognize the point. I just think it's irrelevant, because like I said before 'Hallo! I'm over HERE!'. You're normally so off course that if we were on a firing range you'd be practicing excellent muzzle control keeping it downrange and away from me at all times.

if you actually thought about what i was writing, it would lead you to realize there isn't a strawman in anything i said

I accurately identified and noted the strawmen. Sounds like you need a few English courses as well. Tell me, have you read the wiki I linked to yet? Even re-read the argument stream I called strawman on you for? I explained most of them.

Me: "The occasional dick joke is funny"
You "I approached a group of females, telling dick jokes, they loved it(sarcasm)".

Do you see how this is a strawman? This is like my saying "enjoying an occasional cookie is good" and you going all cookie-monster. The two situations are substantially different.

the simple fucking point:

nobody wants to hear dick jokes except immature douchebags

Ah, we're back to step 1. Now, sure, you may define people who want to hear dick jokes as 'immature douchebags', but that's your personal definition. It takes a lot more than just that for me to consider somebody an 'immature douchebag'.

So now it's up to you to PROVE this statement of yours, preferably without using circular logic. Keep in mind that somebody who's 'dick jokes, dick jokes all day' is indeed probably going to qualify as an immature douchebag in my mind, and that my position is that 'the occasional dick/sexual joke, in a reasonably appropriate context, can be funny'. You're apparently arguing that they're NEVER appropriate, and that reading them is as bad as saying them, etc...

It comes down to this: We both agree than an 'excess' of dick jokes is bad. What we disagree on is what amounts to said excess.

Comment: Re:Animal House (Score 1) 756

by Firethorn (#49318003) Attached to: A Software Project Full of "Male Anatomy" Jokes Causes Controversy

no it isn't. aggressive sexuality, dick jokes to women you don't know, is an immediate uncomfortable put off to all women as it tells them something about the male no female wants to deal with.

...I wasn't saying it was a good thing. Done inappropriately, the knock-knock jokes can be almost as off-putting as the dick jokes.

You're the one that brought up social context with your little scenario. Don't worry about it, if you make it to college speech and debate classes should help immensely.

to not know dick jokes to women you don't know is a complete uncomfortable turn off is identifying yourself as an immature person.

Some editing issues in here. I'm going to assume you meant to start with 'to tell'. Personally, I find telling knock-knock jokes to anybody I don't know(short of being up on stage in a comedy show), to be almost as bad as dick jokes. And you're still setting up strawmen because I never said telling dick jokes to random people in random situations to be 'acceptable'.

yes, you could be an unfortunate older male with no social abilities, but i'm trying to be charitable here and give you the benefit of the doubt that you are young

hehehehehe... No, I'm not young. Retired as a matter of fact, returned to college for a second degree. Of course, if your strawmen were actually true, then yes, I'd be an socially immature sort, but of course, I call them strawmen for a reason. You're either missing or deliberately ignoring the context of what I'm saying.

If anybody, man or woman, doesn't want to browse a repository of jokes, dick or otherwise, they're free to close it. That they're going there indicates that they want to go there. It's not OUR place to judge people on whether or not they like enjoying dick jokes on the privacy of their own computer. It's not my thing, but whatever.

Also, I'm not conceding jack because you have failed in your arguments. You have failed to correct the debate errors that you make. You have failed to address that women are indeed as sexual as men, they are NOT generally 'special little snowflakes' with no sense of humor. You instead set up and quite successfully knock down a series of strawmen while I'm waving 'Over here!'

but keep talking. stubbornness over intelligence is awesome. never mind really attractive to women, right? right? (btw, that's called sarcasm. i'm not sure you have the social skills to understand that. i have to save you from embarrassing yourself further and gloating and arguing with me that stubbornness is not sexy)

Strawman. I guess I'm going to have to start pointing out the irony in my posts to you, aren't I? The subtle as a hammer inversions of any insults against me that I turned back on you, that you apparently didn't catch onto, because you keep using the same argument schemes. Also, not trying to be sexy on the internet. Yet another strawman, I guess.

A sheet of paper is an ink-lined plane. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"