Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: Tim Cook is a Pro Discrimination Faggot (Score 1) 1168

I am. I believe in annullment of non fruitful unions. Fuck who you like, cohabitate as you like, but make marriage about nurturing families has ALWAYS been my position. I came to this position when my tasks as a life insurance agent/financial planner led me to help rich DINKs pay less taxes using marriage laws, and felt strongly enough about it to change careers.

My position may not be to your liking, but it is still based on logical long term social best interests as I see them, and not extremism or prejudice.

Comment: Re: Tim Cook is a Pro Discrimination Faggot (Score 1) 1168

Having a system that supports the creation and nurturing of the next generation of mankind is in the long term best interests of homosexuals just as much as anyone else. Corrupting it into something purely based on decadent sex is not wise. For anyone.

Comment: Re:You can't have both. (Score 1) 255

by ShieldW0lf (#49256761) Attached to: On Firing Open Source Community Members

This is the kind of binary thinking from programmers that erodes the nascent relationships among well-meaning human beings. Your ignorant approach is neither an "Uncomfortable Truth" or a useful concept. Often the most obstreperous person can be the most productive, but they must be carefully taught in social graces. Even elementary schools have learned that "Everyone work alone!" is not a useful model; the best schools now bring along the slower (or more socially inept) students through consistent and persistent group activity. Only autocrats refuse to work on building viable, productive teams in which a disparate members each contribute in their own ways, but in accordance with a common "culture" of mutual respect.

So, the people who are in pain and reflexively lash out at others...

The people who are screwed up socially and offend others without knowing what they're doing...

The people who have no where to turn and no community to welcome them...

You will turn those people away because they're not playing well with others, because they ruin the "peace, love and pancakes" "viable, productive team" kind of atmosphere that you're going for.

And then, you will pat yourself on the back for being welcoming and inclusive?

No. You just have a different definition of what "elite" means.

Comment: You can't have both. (Score 3, Insightful) 255

by ShieldW0lf (#49229809) Attached to: On Firing Open Source Community Members

If you want a welcoming, inclusive community, you don't get to decide certain elements don't belong and remove them.

If you want to do that, you don't really want a welcoming, inclusive community, what you want is a community of elite according to a set of standards.

So, decide what it is you're choice will be and focus in on it, then everything will become obvious.

Comment: Re: Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress lat (Score 1) 517

by ShieldW0lf (#49185477) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Sorry, you don't get to redefine science as "Something a scientist told me."

There is no shortage of people willing to make statements in the authoritative tone, and the stupid and undisciplined accept that as a way to avoid that uncomfortable feeling of uncertainty. I'm not among them, are you?

Comment: Re: Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress late (Score 1) 517

by ShieldW0lf (#49185381) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

If it's not transparent and reproducible, it's not a proposal based on science, but authority. It holds as much weight as a statement by the Flying Spagetti Monster.

If you want a faith based approach to law making, just be forthright about it. It's not like you're alone. But, please don't denigrate the scientific process by claiming that's not what's happening. People are thick enough already...

Comment: Of course (Score 3, Insightful) 89

by ShieldW0lf (#49142909) Attached to: OPSEC For Activists, Because Encryption Is No Guarantee

If I'm the only one who can unlock your encrypted communications, then it's in my best interest to have everyone encrypt their communications, because then, I'll be the only one with total situation awareness.

It won't be in any of your interests, of course, because you'll be handing me my advantage on a silver platter... but you're all far too shortsighted to pay attention to such things.

Of course Obama and the NSA want you all using strong encryption. Stupid of you to give them what they want, though.

Comment: Re:Time for men's liberation (Score 1) 369

by ShieldW0lf (#49069095) Attached to: Two New Male Birth Control Chemicals In Advanced Stages


What if you're one of those people who has gone around the track long enough to understand that sex divorced from reproduction is meaningless, who always wanted to have that family that everyone seems to want to be "liberated" from taking responsibility for?

Because, honestly, that's how I feel, and I've quite literally given up on women, and sex.

Reproductive sex isn't boring, like something out of a Puritan movie. It's just as nasty and wild and passionate and kinky as it always was. But, it's overlaid with the knowledge that, in that moment, you're like God, reaching down to create life, and your dick is his finger, and this might be the moment that your child is created. It's like taking everything that was pleasant about sex and elevating it to a spiritual level without taking anything away from it.

Contraception takes all that away, and renders sex with a woman no different from sex with an apple pie, or a man, or a dog.

It should be the first letter in the acronym. SLGBT, with the first letter representing the word "Sterile".

I used to spend my free time chasing a mate. Now that I realize I'd have an easier time finding a unicorn in this culture than a woman who will truly commit to creating a family, I find it hard to find reasons not to sit and grow moss.

But hey, thanks for setting us all free.

Comment: Re:Welcome to the 90s! (Score 2) 166

by ShieldW0lf (#49055421) Attached to: Vint Cerf Warns Against 'Digital Dark Age'

As we become more sophisticated, we design things that are more delicate. The more advanced we are, the less likely our creations will be accessible to those who come after we fall.

Which, considering that we've demonstrated these capabilities once already, and considering how long we or bipeds like us have been around, implies that it's happened before.

If there were more advanced civilizations before us, there's no reason to think we'd know about them.

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten