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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:In other words. (Score 2) 288

I did read that the secretary of state considered that the records aren't subject to the Kansas open records act. In my eyes any such avoidance of disclosure means that there's something to hide.

Of course it could just as easily be that they are understaffed and will not take time to comply with requests they don't have to. Or, they have plenty of staff but can't be arsed to stop updating Facebook to comply with requests they don't have to. Any road, the records are in a rotten format that would take a lot of effort to work through to comply with a request they are not required to comply with. So, quite possible they're saying piss off because they can, not because they have nothing to hide.

Comment Re:Amazing (Score 1) 492

These are fine observations, but pretty much all, with some variation as needed, apply to the other candidates as well.

The right question about Trump is, which candidate is better? Because they all share his faults to some extent, aside from Trump's salient qualities which are that he's not beholden to the PC culture and he's more plain spoken. Chris Christie almost had this going some years ago, but lost his mojo some time after falling in love with Obama.

The common mistake is to interpret "plain spoken" as honest. I would never argue or assume that he is. I do prefer plain spoken lies over the weasel words of our political establishment though. Trump might become a monkeywrench to the gears of political establishment, at least the traditional passing of power.

The repubs have been making deals and passing laws to "reform immigration" since before JFK. Abortion laws they propose tend to include poison pill details forcing rape and incest victims to carry to term. The party of fiscal constraint?? These clowns aren't serious about any of this, it's all just lip service. So if the Donald is guilty of same, conservatives haven't lost anything.

I vote Monkeywrench.

Comment Re:How does one determine the difference... (Score 1) 389

To even joke about it shows a flippant disregard for the rule of law. Not only do you think there is no rule of law, but you don't even care if there is -- you're simply accepting it as fait accompli.

I don't think that was flippant disregard, but growing disgust for the downward spiral into 3rd world style gov't, because there is no rule of law, only rule of some laws as they fit the policy of the person in office at a given time.

Comment Re: (Score 0) 298

I've never met a person who denies climate change. I think most people learn in grade school that Earth's climate has changed since the beginning when it was a molten, soupy mess. The inaccurate "climate change deniers" label helps the AGW "industry" (another cheap label, but untrue?) keep ongoing debate to a low, inconsequential level.

When it comes to climate science I am an ignorant layman so my default position on AGW would be agnostic. I already know climate change is a feature of the planet, so I'm bored to tears reading articles about pro-AGW zealots proposing fines, imprisonment, death, concentration camps, etc for "deniers" and downright put-off by quotes from hypocrite Al Gore or the dubious Michael Mann.

Then there's the "it's already decided, so don't even ask" posture that useless zealots adopt. It is NOT decided because you are assuming the wrong debate - climate change predates man and is not in question. What amount of current climate change is anthropogenic and how do you arrive at such numbers? What are effective responses to this, if it is worthy of response, and why do you think it will work? What are the costs - are any economies going to come crashing down? Will the price of corn become such that 3rd world children go hungry while thier Western counterparts enjoy a smug ride in ethanol powered SUVs? What impact have AGW measures had so far, if at all measurable? Answers to these questions may be available, but the public won't know because their bandwidth is overwhelmed by the school-yard nonsense of name-calling, lawsuits, and Jessica Alba rockin' a bikini for the cause.

Kyoto turned out to be a blunt political instrument that hardly anyone intended to adopt anyway. Other suggestions have a passing similarity to wealth redistribution schemes. AGW "solutions" should be reviewed for such features. AGW deserves rigorous criticism if only due to the tremendous amount of resources already comandeered to study and address it, and the social engineering measures proponents appear to be licking their chops over. Get rid of school-yard posturing and name-calling, Michael Mann, and regarding people who would challenge you as imbeciles. Then maybe your efforts will get more traction.

Slashdot Top Deals

You have a tendency to feel you are superior to most computers.