Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Bad comparison to gay marriage (Score 1) 355

Gay marriage is about equal rights.

Then argue your support for this belief.

I do not dispute that marriage bestows rights above an beyond unmarried individuals...

Oh, you dont intend to do that. You intend to just declare that its about equal rights in spite of being forced to admit that it isn't. Equal rights is not a slippery concept. It is an absolute. Either rights are equal for all people are they are not equal rights.

Denying individuals the ability to participate in this institution simply because of sexual preference...

Sexual preference is not and never has been a requirement or limitation of marriage in this country. You seem to be equating sex with marriage, a quite arbitrary definition.

Can I marry my mother? I don't intend to have sex with her. I just wish for her and I to join the special rights club that gays want to so badly be in. Whats that? There is no push to legalize marriage between mother and child? Yeah... because its not about equal rights.

Comment: Re:How many? (Score 1) 293

by Rockoon (#46825551) Attached to: Aereo To SCOTUS: Shut Us Down and You Shut Down Cloud Storage

Just how many industries will we allow the content industry to ruin in its death throes before we finally get wiser?

It is not the content industry that is attacking Aereo.. its not even the cable companies.

It is the broadcasters that are attacking Aereo because if Aereo is allowed to do what they are doing, then cable companies (who want to see Aereo win) can go ahead and do exactly what Aereo is doing, so they can avoid paying any redistribution fees to the broadcasters.

Comment: Re:Bad comparison to gay marriage (Score 3, Interesting) 355

Gay marriage is about gaining the SAME right as the rest of the population. Affirmative action is about granting certain racial groups EXTRA rights over the rest of the population.

You clearly dont understand what marriage is. Marriage is not a holy bond, nor do homosexuals want to get married out of a great respect for the institution of marriage. They want to be able to get married because marriage gives them extra rights that unmarried people (the rest of the population) do not have. Note how I used your own terminology and it fits exactly.

The push for gay marriage was never about equality. A push for equality would remove all special rights from the married class or give all the special rights the married class has to the unmarried class. Since gay marriage does neither, it cannot be about equality at all. Its about adding themselves to the special rights group that enjoys 1,138 statutory provisions that use marriage as the determining factor for EXTRA benefits and privileges.

Comment: Re:...er... (Score -1, Troll) 233

by Rockoon (#46811749) Attached to: Intentional Backdoor In Consumer Routers Found

Unless the router firmware is open source, you have no way of knowing what it is doing, DOCSIS or not.

..and when it is open source, we get our hearts bled anyways.

Instead of jabber-jawing about your religious crusade to promote open source, why dont you instead focus on reviewing some open source codebases. Maybe if you are really diligent for a long enough period of time, your religion will earn our trust.

Comment: Re:want to figure it out BEFORE most customers pay (Score 0) 450

by Rockoon (#46810633) Attached to: Oklahoma Moves To Discourage Solar and Wind Power

hat the hell are you talking about. Any engineer will tell you that generating power at peak demand is much more expensive on the plant than at other times.

What the hell are YOU talking about? The people with panels arent generating much power at peak usage times -- they are drawing power at peak because the sun isnt above their house. At peak the sub is approaching or already below the horizon.

Given this, nothing you said makes any sense at all. its like you dont even have the first clue about what you are talking about. Seems fishy to me that you would be so gung-ho to post on a topic you for certain know that you dont understand. Almost as if you are just repeating some shit someone else said, because you share some sort of bond, such as a god damned bleeding heart.

Comment: Re:What the hell is this article? (Score 1) 240

by Rockoon (#46800183) Attached to: Google and Facebook: Unelected Superpowers?

Its more elemental. If those that produce are convinced they won't keep or benefit from what they produce they won't produce and everyone suffers.

Its worse than that. They do not understand that everyone that trades benefits when trades are a choice. The "Free" in "Free Trade" means Liberty. You are also Free to not trade. These are not ironically the same people that complain about things that they are willing consumers of....

I don't think that its the "socialist" philosophy that has turned them into "fuckwits" as you say -- I think its simply that they are Statists. See their calls to confiscate Google properties. "Nationalize them" indeed.

Comment: Re:Why concerned about only one side of Keystone X (Score 2) 240

by Rockoon (#46800043) Attached to: Google and Facebook: Unelected Superpowers?

It's like the Democrats are already trying to rationalize why they've lost the 2014 mid-terms.

They want the Koch brothers silenced just like they want Rush Limbaugh silenced. It is unimaginable to them that others might disagree with them without the root of that disagreement being pure greed.

They just cannot believe that half the country disagrees with them, even though clearly half the country isnt "the 2%" They truly believe that "the 2%" are greedy and the other 48% that also disagree with them are "too stupid to vote in their own self interest." This is of course a catch-22 .. their logic is that the 2% are guilty because they are greedy, and the rest of the people that arent liberals are guilty because they arent greedy.

I'm not a Republican. I just cant fucking stand the dripping hypocrisy, nor the unimaginable logical fallacies of the fucking American Democrats any longer. I used to think the Democrats were liberal. They fucking aren't. They are just pure petty intolerant fucks with a giant splash of jealousy coupled with unashamed levels of outlandish hypocrisy.

Comment: Re:Well considering that.. (Score 1) 389

by Rockoon (#46797319) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Hungry Students, How Common?
None of you seem to know what wealth is.

Wealth is not a dollar amount in a bank account, nor is it a deed to a property, nor the size of your paycheck.

Wealth is the goods and services that you can enjoy. Money is a means to that end, but when comparing percentages of money between different pools (such as between different countries) you cannot possibly be comparing wealth in any way at all, because money percentages are even more removed from wealth than money itself is.

Americans are doing quite fine in the wealth department. The vast majority of Americans enjoy levels of goods and services that are the envy of most of the world. 5% this, 11% that, 20% whatever, 44% blah blah... meaningless crap that does not relate to wealth at all.

With the looming trillion dollar student loan bubble, it is quite clear that Americans are not going without access to the higher education services, that quite the contrary there is evidence that too many are partaking in the service to the detriment of us all.

Comment: Re:Bad idea? (Score 1) 32

Exactly.

If NTIS were funded through appropriations then the behavior of other government departments would significantly effect the funding that NTIS needs. If NTIS charges the requesting department per document then NTIS's budget scales with demand and the burden for the activity of the requesting department rests on the requesting department.

As far as charging for free documents - the NTIS is offering a one-stop-shop service, which requires money to implement and maintain. That some of the documents are free elsewhere is irrelevant.

Comment: Re:Singapore (Score 1) 386

by Rockoon (#46725393) Attached to: UN Report Reveals Odds of Being Murdered Country By Country

Nowhere in the wikipedia article you "cite" does it say that

..except for where it gives the 13.8 figure right away in the second sentence of the article, and references it as a number estimated by the United Nations.

"The city-state had the second highest per-capita execution rate in the world between 1994 and 1999, estimated by the United Nations to be 13.83 executions annually per hundred thousand of population during that period."
You are completely worthless if you cant even find shit right at the top when looking at a reference. Seriously. Fucking. Worthless.

"If that makes any sense to you, you have a big problem." -- C. Durance, Computer Science 234

Working...