Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Who will get (Score 2) 359

by ScentCone (#48657681) Attached to: North Korean Internet Is Down

... Dragnet from 1968 or 1969 showing the situation after the assassination of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. ... You take the afros and 60s cars out of that episode and it could have been made yesterday.

Except Michael Brown was no Martin Luther King. King would have been appalled by the circumstances into which Brown's family launched him through neglect of his character. King would have been disgusted by Brown, who spend the morning smoking dope, robbing a convenience store to get more supplies, and then assaulting a cop. King would likewise have been disgusted by people chanting in the streets about things that didn't happen, outraged by their willingness to destroy people's property and burn down their neighborhood businesses, or shout in large organized groups about wanting to see dead cops NOW!

No, things are very different now than they were even 20 years ago. Worse, when it comes to that sort of thing.

Comment: Re:About Fucking Time (Score 1) 433

by ScentCone (#48657607) Attached to: In Breakthrough, US and Cuba To Resume Diplomatic Relations

What was he supposed to do - fly in with super speed and drag Bin Laden off to prison?

Well I definitely give you points for being so tenacious in your attempt to pretend you still understand the conversation.

Another poster says that people are wrong to point out Obama's failures, because look at all of the things HE accomplished. Except, HE didn't do those things. He's not responsible for them. The Bin Laden take-down had essentially zero to do with him or any policy on his part, other than, "Yeah, keep doing what you started doing under Bush, until we get that guy." I'm pointing out that the person trying to fish around for some way to show Obama as a success, is attributing to him personally things for which he is not responsible. But you keep attacking that straw man, if it makes you feel better. Nobody is fooled, and I doubt you're even fooling yourself.

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 1) 339

Accountants look at the operating costs of a retail store as part and parcel of that store's profitability. Locks on doors, anti-theft devices on displays - those security systems and the people who maintain and support them are costs that impact the profitability of the store. Nobody running a real business pretends that the costs of operating that retail store aren't part of that store's profitability picture. Multi-store overhead (like, say, a loss prevention specialist who spends time at all of the stores) is still part of that store's P&L - her salary is charged to multiple accounts, so that each store's bottom line feels that cost.

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 1) 339

So inside a retail store are thousands and thousands of tiny little cost centers? Does that mean that the retail store is also thousands and thousands of tiny little profit centers?

Or would a rational person perhaps look at the store as a profit center because it makes money, despite having overhead costs like ... the screws that hold the front door to its hinges? Or is each of those screws a cost center, in your view?

Comment: Re:Sure... (Score 0) 339

Unfortunately, security is a cost center, not a profit center. That doesn't sit well with the MBA types.

Nonsense. It only doesn't sit well with the fictional, cartoon-grade MBA types that IT people like to conjure up as straw men. Security IS a profit center, because it's part and parcel of actually doing everything that generates profit. Without it, the profitable activity is impossible, and so it is part of the profit-making activity. Period. Saying it's no is like saying the director of a Sony movie isn't part of their profitable activity of making movies because he has to be paid.

Comment: Re:hooray for the government (Score 1) 68

by ScentCone (#48637623) Attached to: Councilmen Introduce Bills Strongly Regulating UAV Use in NYC
No, I'm focused DIRECTLY on your comment. Which is peppered with the pretentious and (in this context) meaningless word "externalities" - in an attempt to make it sound like you're constructing an argument, when you're actually not. When you're not saying anything, the only thing to focus on IS the blather and the blatherer.

Comment: Re:Land of the free (Score 1) 579

by ScentCone (#48635569) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'
So, again, the only time the knife becomes dangerous is when YOU pick it up, or someone else does. Only human action makes it dangerous. It's not inherently dangerous, it's human action that is dangerous. Otherwise the knife is inert, sitting there, and unable in any way to hurt you or someone else. Unless it's highly radioactive or something - but I'm guessing that's not what you're getting at.

Comment: Re:Land of the free (Score 1) 579

by ScentCone (#48630653) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

Now start cleaning that gun and the picture changes. Now take the gun to a shooting range, and remove all the bullets when you take it home and put it on the table. What are the chances that you left a bullet? Now show your friends that there are no bullets. What are the chances that you fire a shot from a gun that you absolutely positively definitely knew had no bullets in it, and kill one of your friends?

So what you're taking great pains to say is that guns aren't inherently dangerous, people are. Because they kill themselves and each other all the time through careless acts. You've done nothing to show inherent danger in that hunk of metal, but you have shown an odd desire to absolve people of their own stupidity, shifting the blame to inanimate objects than cannot, by themselves, hurt you. It's a fundamentally irrational view of reality. Or, more likely, it's a thinly veiled agenda trying to hide behind a bit of fear mongering.

Interchangeable parts won't.

Working...