Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Gridlock (Score 1) 170

"Only democrats spend tons of money" says area man with no grip on reality.

No, his point was that on things like this, Democrats only spend money (as opposed to actually getting things done right). The money gets spent, but the supposed purpose for which money is being taxed or borrowed and then spread around on the chartering and running of panels, focus groups, advisory boards, and programs as being mentioned in the OP ... that amounts to nothing constructive. But it does add new bureaucrats and unfireable new federal employees to the picture, and grows the size and pointless intrusiveness of the government, so it's definitely just what Democrats seek to do.

Comment Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy (Score 1) 566

For those that say "but they will not see in the dark or with rain" there is a simple solution: adapt to the speed you can travel, so slow down. That is the whole purpose.

Similar to what I said earlier in the discussion, you could also fill the road with potholes to make people slow down. You are making the road less safe to scare people, while also completely disregarding their need to get somewhere in a timely manner.

Comment Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy (Score 1) 566

No, it's not. You could also fill the street with potholes. That would slow people down (and damage their cars) with no benefit. Not having the lines to guide people, keeping them in safe lanes, could cause them to slow down to a speed that wasn't needed before you did it.

Yes, accidents are more severe at high speed. But we still have high speed expressways, right? You're reminding me of that Bloom County cartoon from the 1980s, where Milo accused Opus of wanting 30,000 people to die on the highways because he didn't support a 15 MPH speed limit over 55.

Comment Re: Ok. (Score 2) 573

Well, just because you can make ads that fill up the entire page and can't be skipped, move around the screen, play videos and sound, or redirect the browser to another page, doesn't mean you should. That's abuse.

It's annoying how much space is dedicated to advertising in a print magazine, but at least it doesn't do those things. If it did, print would be dying even faster than it is.

Comment Re: Ok. (Score 0, Flamebait) 573

How is using *my* electricity, risking *my* computer's integrity, distracting *my* attention for *your* profit not abusing *my* resources?

Because YOU are the one choosing to go consume the content that someone else risks time and money to create. Nobody is forcing you to go to Wired for your amusement. But you're looking to use a technical method to separate the content you want to see from the content that the person who's creating and hosting that content wants to include in what you're not paying them for in order to do pesky things like not go bankrupt as they meet payroll and keep producing the thing to which you feel entitled at no cost.

What are you, 12? Yeah, I thought so.

Comment Re:Going to become more common. (Score 1) 129

Just because they're prey to our special operators doesn't make them any less predators from the point of view of the thousands and thousands of people they are slaughtering in the name of rewinding to the dark ages. They're definitely predators, as their world view requires that sort of predation in order to exist.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 293

If you need examples, ask every victim of every revolution or warzone who suddenly had saw their rights disappear when the men with guns showed up.

Their rights didn't disappear, their rights were denied. Infringed. Interfered with.

Governments don't give rights. Governments impose limits on them, or protect against that happening. But they don't create them. Hopefully you're not confusing rights with entitlements like so many people do.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 293

You don't have any natural rights to be free from tigers or from gravity. But you DO have the natural expectation that another rational being will understand that if they attack you, they are waiving their own claim on living peacefully. That you don't grasp this is pretty amazing, really.

You'll find that your idea of "rights" disappears quite quickly as soon as any functioning society breaks down.

My "idea" of rights exists at any scale and under any circumstances. That's the entire point. Irrational people do indeed look to take advantage circumstances in which they feel willing to take the chance that their use of violence will go unchallenged because of unpleasant or unexpected circumstances. Which doesn't change the fact that they lose their claim to life when they deny you yours. That's the right you naturally have: to use (or have used on your behalf) the violence necessary to defend your life. Why? Because rational people don't kill other people except in self defense. Those who initiate the violence waive their rights to live in peace.

You're confusing having a right with happening to have the power to defend it at some particular time. These are not the same thing.

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.

Working...