Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I like... (Score 4, Insightful) 413

by KamikazeSquid (#47768261) Attached to: U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

What if the police got to the scene of a crime after the victim (a black man) managed to turn the tables on the attacker (a white woman) and the only thing the camera saw was the victim (a black man) attacking the attacker (a white woman) in a panicked frenzy? Camera and the police says the victim (a black man) is the attacker, therefore the victim (a black man) gets arrested. Investigation? Why conduct one when the police (partly) caught a black man beating a white woman on camera?

How is this any different from the current situation? Currently, said officer will simply testify in court, "I arrived at the scene and the only thing I saw was a black man attacking a white woman in a panicked frenzy."

At least, with the camera solution, we can be 100% sure that the officer isn't telling a flat-out lie when they say something like that in court.

Comment: Re:Short term (Score 1) 470

by KamikazeSquid (#47761497) Attached to: California DMV Told Google Cars Still Need Steering Wheels
I'm 26. I started driving when I was 17, and my Dad gave me a used car when I moved out at 18. By the time I was 19, I sold the car. In the past 7 years, I've relied almost exclusively on public transportation, and only operated vehicles on a couple of different occasions; these were rental vehicles that I used to move my furniture from one apartment to another.

Comment: Re:That's why slashdot is against tech immigration (Score 1) 441

That analogy doesn't work, at all. Immigration reform has nothing to do with the social construct of property ownership. I have no objections to the concept of property ownership. I just think that all of this anxiety about letting people into the country is completely illogical and rooted in irrational fear more than it is rooted in an actual understanding of economics and national policy.

Comment: Re:That's why slashdot is against tech immigration (Score 1) 441

I'm pretty sure that doesn't make any sense. How, exactly, will allowing foreign nationals to move to the United States and seek employment cause harm?

Ultimately, these arguments usually come down to something like this: if people from less developed nations move into the United States and seek employment, the increased supply of labor will reduce the average cost of labor within the country and increase the burden on our public services. This is bad for the people who already live in the United States, so those people should stay in their less-developed nation, where they will have a lower quality of life but they won't reduce our own quality of life.

In other words, it's nationalist bullshit that places greater importance on the quality of life for U.S. citizens, simply because they were born in this nation and those other people weren't born in this nation. We're willing to let people outside of our borders starve to death, as long as it means that we won't suffer even the most marginal decline in our own quality of life. It's selfish, and the entire process of thought relies on an "us vs. them" mentality which places a lower value on the life of someone who lives outside the arbitrary borders of this country. Ultimately, allowing people to move more freely between countries will foster a greater emphasis on the importance of global welfare, instead of taking this "us vs. them" mentality that places the utmost importance on the welfare of our own citizens and is indifferent to the suffering of the global population.

I might add that a huge portion of this country used to arbitrarily belong to Mexico, but we conquered that territory in the Mexican-American War, taking over huge sections of territory that weren't even part of the initial dispute over the exact location of the Texan border. Now, in the modern era, immigrants traveling to the United States from Mexico is a huge cause for concern in the U.S., with people concerned that they're going to "take our jerbs", when in reality, those people are just trying to migrate into territory that originally belonged to their nation in the first place, before we took it by force of arms.

Furthermore, all of this anxiety that immigrants are going to ruin our economy is essentially unfounded in the first place, and is repeated ad nauseam by people with little understanding of economics who are making policy arguments that are based on ideologies that have been spoon-fed to them, about issues that they don't know anything about. The National Economic Council, the Domestic Policy Council, the President's Council of Economic Advisers, and the Office of Management and Budget published a joint report in 2013 which explains why immigration reform will ultimately strengthen the economy.

Comment: Re:We already know how to prevent cancer (Score 1) 185

See, now you're just part of the problem I was talking about. Reducing your risk for cancer by eating well or abstaining from tobacco use is not "pseudo-science," and by claiming that it is, you're just encouraging people to continue making poor decisions while they wait around for a "cure for cancer," when they could start reducing their risk right now by making important lifestyle changes.

The linked article is from the Mayo clinic ... one of the most well-known and respected hospitals in the United States.

Comment: Re:That's why slashdot is against tech immigration (Score 1) 441

Ugh. I'm so sick of all this nationalist bullshit. Why are we so afraid of the global economy? People should be free to move between different countries and seek employment at will. Ultimately, it's better for the world if we break down these artificial barriers.

Comment: Re:Not exactly endearing you to the public (Score 0, Offtopic) 441

Dear Gods, your font. Why do you have that font. That is the worst font ever, it hurts my eyeballs. Monospaced fonts are obsolete for a reason.

Where is your marketing department? Do they know that you're posting on /. with that horrible, eye-melting font? Why did they let you out. Why.

Comment: We already know how to prevent cancer (Score 1) 185

by KamikazeSquid (#47723601) Attached to: New Research Suggests Cancer May Be an Intrinsic Property of Cells

Cancer is a terrible disease and a cure would be a very amazing thing to have. Certainly, if there is any chance of curing it, we should do so.

The thing is, though, we already know how you can greatly reduce your risk factors for developing cancer, and we don't talk about that often enough. We speak so often of "curing" cancer when we should be focusing more energy on preventing it from happening in the first place.

Cancer prevention: 7 tips to reduce your risk

Comment: Re:What constitutes sexism? (Score 1) 734

by KamikazeSquid (#47716321) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Again, I'm sure if I posted her exact words somewhere but reversed the genders, I would have feminists banging on my door complaining of misogyny.

I'm pretty sure that feminists are also banging on that woman's door to complain about her blatantly offensive and counter-productive ideas.

Also, considering that you read this on 4chan ... are you sure that it was actually written by a woman? Or is it possible that this was made up in some way, as a strategy to discredit another group? Either way, you can't look at something like that and then seriously think, "this must be what all feminists believe in." That would be ridiculous.

"Regardless of the legal speed limit, your Buick must be operated at speeds faster than 85 MPH (140kph)." -- 1987 Buick Grand National owners manual.