Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Cooling towers (Score 1) 53

I believe these refer to cooling towers used for air conditioning, from context. These are more efficient versions (if I understand it correctly) of the compressor (the box that's usually outside as part of a normal two unit home air conditioning system), that use water evaporation to cool the system.

Comment Re:Amazingly stupid comment (Score 1) 335

Way to completely (deliberately, of course) miss the point. You're (deliberately) confusing tactics and specific weapon use with strategy and motivation.

the war crimes of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq

Oh, please. The Taliban had brutally taken over Afghanistan, and was harboring the group that had just killed thousands of Americans ... and refused to turn them over. Dealing with them was not a "war crime." And, Iraq? The UN authorized the use of force because, among other things, Saddam never even TRIED to honor the agreements he made as he was pushed back from his invasion of Kuwait - he was overthrown because he was continuing to attack the aircraft patrolling the no fly zones set up to prevent him from slaughtering even more ethnic minorities with WMDs, skimming UN aid money to trade in more long range weapons, blocking and lying to weapons inspectors, etc. All of this not only justified, it demanded the action taken - which was blessed by the UN as well as by the US congress. Holding Saddam's regime responsible for his ongoing hostility and cease-fire violations is not a "war crime." HE was the one who continued to commit crimes, and that was stopped.

the illegal war against Libya

You're deliberately pretending you can't tell the difference between "illegal" and "done poorly by an administration that doesn't know how to do such things."

the overthrow of Ukraine's democracy

You're pretending you don't know the difference between Russia and the US. How do you think it's helping you to appear credible when you pretend you're that confused?

the bombing of even more countries that have never been a threat to us

Ah, the ol' hand-waving vagueness tactic. Again, how do you think this helping you to sound credible?

the drone assassins that have killed hundreds of kids

You mean, the Al Qeda and Taliban and ISIS tactics of putting very bad people and their supplies in and around local women and children specifically to make sure that such deaths occur? And if that had been done with a standard F-16, depriving you of your reliance on cartoonish dwelling on the word "drone" ... then you'd have to actually address the substance of the matter instead of invoking the D-word to add some drama you hope will cover for the lack of actual knowledge?

Comment There's some big philosophical differences. (Score 3, Insightful) 212

Evil, outside of special pleading for a particular belief system, is usually framed in terms of actively choosing the harm of others (even if it is masked in deniability). There's some very important meaning in 'don't be evil' that I always liked. Even if some evil is deemed unavoidable by sheer weight of circumstances in life, the general policy should still be to avoid it if at all doable, by any philosophy I'd respect..

"Do the right thing", however, is utterly subjective. Genocide can be seen as the right thing, by a great many, many belief systems, as could complete elimination of all other belief systems. Complete stagnation lies down most 'pure' roads. Utter evil, the complete willingness to harm others at a whim, is constantly 'justified' in the name of most ideals taken in isolation.

I suppose that's a problem with business groups though - the more people involved, the more push to 'optimize' towards some ideal that gets so important, that 'evil' is no longer a limitation. All groups do evil, because there are people involved, but most businesses seem to become blind to their own evil as they grow, until they specialize in mostly doing that evil. Well, until those outside the group start reacting to their actions, then they seem to asymptotically bounce against, and push out the ethical line.

Fortunately, the end result isn't so horrible, by most standards, basically ever measurable aspect of culture has reliably improved over time, from freedom, to intelligence scales, to health and others - but it's just interesting how groups specialize and play such strange roles.

Ryan Fenton

Comment Re: weakly disguised hit-piece (Score 1) 296

you're making excuses. there's plenty of differences but not of the kind and of the type to make germany different enough that basic economic facts about socialized healthcare and higher education wouldn't work in the usa

you're desperate and reaching for straws to bvoid the obvious lesson

"germany is less square miles so gravity doesn't work the same in germany"

that's what you sound like

we're talking basic economic principles here

you're not being intellectually honest

"cultural differences" is the new cheat by pridefully ignorant assholes to avoid basic lessons about the reality they live in

Comment Re:Hmm... (Score 1) 203

ah yes, that orthodox leftist creed of keeping drugs safe

there's no need for it, it's a severe authoritarian need to control people, right? like a cartoon movie script: "ooh, i'm a lefty, i'm here to destroy your rights {insert manaical laugh}. why? i dunno. it's just what we do since central casting by joe mccarthy in the 1950s"

you need a cartoon villain to have your cartoon belief system

because these problems don't exist:

that's just from last week

how many millions of more examples do you want you ignorant asshole before you try matching your beliefs to reality?

that is the actual threat. that is why we have government regulations like the FDA: to protect us from the actual fucking real threat: industry

meanwhile, you want to whine about "orthodox leftist creeds"

that's not the actual threat, that's your uneducated delusion you ignorant piece of shit

did i make up executives who will kill you and poison you to make $1 more? am i making that shit up? do you read the fucking news? there's 3 links above from last week. do you want some more you shitbag before you try the slightest bit of intellectual honesty for the first time in your low iq life?

you imagine regulation as the threat, when the fucking story you are commenting under shows the real threat is industry. reality

why do you persist with a belief that fucking contradicts simple facts and simple reality around you

what the fuck is the source of your colossal ignorance you useless propagandized piece of shit?

you're a zombie. walking through the world blind, unable to see or understand anything. just regurgitating the same tired wrong ignorance, without the slightest effort to accept facts. prideful ignorance

Comment Re: weakly disguised hit-piece (Score 2) 296

you want to give the benefit of the doubt. it is mostly stupid people out there. nine times out of ten, they genuinely don't understand what the fuck they are talking about but open their mouths anyway

if i am having a conversation here with mostly europeans, and the difference is therefore in terminology (there are dumb europeans as well as dumb americans, but the terminology differences means indeed i have to side with caution), then i apologize

but if i am talking to the usual low iq propagandized american retard on this topic, there is no apology necessary

i am not using empty insults. we are talking about, objectively, morons. who talk about economic concepts they don't understand, merely regurgitating quasireligous beliefs their propaganda channels spoonfeed to the useful fools. genuine morons

do you respect a creationist when talking about evolution? an antivaxxer when talking about biology? no and no. these people need to be castigated and rejected. they reject reason so there is no use arguing with them. so it is with free market fundamentalist retards. they have beliefs that only exist when ignoring economics and simple history

Comment Re:weakly disguised hit-piece (Score 1) 296

you're an uneducated idiot. stop talking about topics you don't understand. libertarianism was originally about social issues in europe. then it got coopted and repurposed (so stolen... ironically) to be used as a term for economic issues in the usa

to the point that people now can call themselves libertarians in europe, or libertarians in the usa, and actually stand for completely oppposite positions in the economic and social spheres

The term libertarian was first used by late-Enlightenment freethinkers to refer to the metaphysical belief in free will, as opposed to determinism.[12] The first recorded use was in 1789, when William Belsham wrote about libertarianism in opposition to "necessitarian", i.e. determinist, views.[13][14]

Libertarian came to mean an advocate or defender of liberty, especially in the political and social spheres, as early as 1796, when the London Packet printed on 12 February: "Lately marched out of the Prison at Bristol, 450 of the French Libertarians."[15] The word was again used in a political sense in 1802, in a short piece critiquing a poem by "the author of Gebir", and has since been used with this meaning.[16][17][18]

The use of the word libertarian to describe a new set of political positions has been traced to the French cognate, libertaire, coined in a scathing letter French libertarian communist Joseph Déjacque wrote to mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857, castigating him for his sexist political views.[19][20] Déjacque also used the term for his anarchist publication Le Libertaire: Journal du Mouvement Social, which was printed from 9 June 1858 to 4 February 1861 in New York City.[21][22] In the mid-1890s, Sébastien Faure began publishing a new Le Libertaire while France's Third Republic enacted the lois scélérates ("villainous laws"), which banned anarchist publications in France. Libertarianism has frequently been used as a synonym for anarchism since this time.[23][24][25]

Although the word libertarian continues to be widely used to refer to socialists internationally, its meaning in the United States has deviated from its political origins.[26][27] Libertarianism in the United States has been described as conservative on economic issues and liberal on personal freedom[28] (for common meanings of conservative and liberal in the United States); it is also often associated with a foreign policy of non-interventionism.[29][30] Since the resurgence of neoliberalism in the 1970s, free-market capitalist libertarianism has spread beyond North America via think tanks and political parties.[31]

Comment Re: weakly disguised hit-piece (Score 2, Insightful) 296

your healthcare system costs 100-1,000x less than ours does and you live longer with a higher quality of life

your higher education is so cheap, you'll even take americans for free if they do good on their exams, no need to even learn german

of course germany has problems, every nation does, you're an idiot if you think i was describing germany as some sort of paradise

but from this side of the pond, germany is clearly and unequivocally doing better on the issue of social safety nets, for which us americans are paying many multiples of, for far less benefit, because morons here think it's a free market, and plutocrats corrupt our elected officials to keep thew gravy train flowing

Comment Re:weakly disguised hit-piece (Score 1) 296

and libertarianism as originally defined was about social issues: i can wear what i want, say what i want, use what drugs i want, no constraints

then it got adapted as "don't tax the rich" by plutocrats and their sycophants in the usa and american morons lapped it up, and now it has a mostly economic meaning in the usa

words like these are complex with many overlapping meanings by time period and location

suffice it to say, if you ask a european what socialism is, they will answer as i described, and bernie sanders will answer as you describe, because the usa has altered notions of word meaning

Comment Re:Gun-free zone? (Score 1) 1137

the founding fathers said in the second amendment that citizens should remain well trained with muskets. to have a populace useful and knowledgable with guns, the government should not prevent the use of guns. they were worried confiscation fo guns would lead to a populace unable to fend for itself and unable to fight back against a bad government

but that is not what we currently have

we have any asshole gets a handgun and never uses it as the founding fathers intended

namely: skill, knowledge, expertise. what would have existed on the frontier from weekly if not daily use, to obtain food and safety, as a natural consequence of the importance of guns in daily life back then

but the use of guns today is not about what the founding fathers intended the purpose of the second amendment to be

so we must enforce the true meaning of the second amendment: the building of knowledge, expertise, proficiency, skill. we must enforce that. we must say: "sure, get a gun. now show us you know what the hell you are doing: pass this test, get this certification, prove you are upholding the meaning of the second amendment with your gun ownership"

then safety and responsibility with guns becomes a secondary effect. anyone who is not able to meet the standards demanded by the founding fathers is no longer legally able to own a fire arm

the meaning of the second amendment as you understand it, as it has come to mean for the majority of americans: any asshole can get a gun like candy, is *not* at all what the second amendment says and means

stop selling the lie. examine the wording yourself. stop trying to put the square peg of your comment in that round hole of the actual wording of the second amendment

Going the speed of light is bad for your age.