Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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: Re:Not consistent? (Score 1) 823

by Kenrod (#26921897) Attached to: Arctic Ice Extent Understated Because of "Sensor Drift"

So your single anecdotal evidence, which is little more than a general observation that you've "seen a difference in the seasons", is supposed to be credible from an objective, scientific standpoint?

And the question isn't whether the climate is changing, it is always changing. The question is how much, how fast, and why.

Comment: Re:Well, duh (Score 1) 717

by Kenrod (#26563689) Attached to: Whistleblower Claims NSA Spied On Everyone, Targeted Media

The parent didn't make a point of saying "This is true because worldnetdaily says so". However, the responder claimed the source was not trustworthy ("worldnutdaily"), without addressing the core argument, so that is the true ad hominem. If someone criticizes your source, the correct course of action is to declare ad hominem and defend your source.

Comment: Re:Economics in one Lesson (Score 4, Insightful) 147

by Kenrod (#26554675) Attached to: Cape Wind Ready To Bring First Offshore Wind Farm

Most people exchange what they produce for money, which is almost universally exchangeable for something else of value without carrying the risk of a non-cash type of asset. The parent's point is that in a free market people exchange their work for something of value which is owned and controlled by them. People care more about that which they own than that which they do not own.

And most Fortune 500 companies do just fine in good times and bad. If you are thinking of that the banks have been mis-managed lately, think again. The banks adapted high-risk, high-return strategies because there was an implicit guarantee that the Feds would bail them out. Guess what? The Feds bailed them out. The banks would likely not have engaged in such risky behavior without the meddling of the Federal government through institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and insipidly poor oversight by the SEC and Congress.

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.