Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Ok. (Score 1) 666

I run with no-script on, and whitelist websites that I find myself frequently visiting and trust.

Whenever I see a website with a list like,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I literally just close the page. It isn't worth my time trying to temporarily allow these websites one by one to see which one actually ends up serving me the content I originally requested.

Fuck'em. Even the porn sites are better.

Comment Re:John Oliver (Score 1) 954

The USA's gun death rate is far far far higher than places like Canada, France, UK, etc.

I just want to requote this part here, because it's a perfect example of the duplicitousness of the anti-gun rhetoric I see. If you look this fact up, you'll see it is absolutely true - here is an example showing a correlation between gun ownership rates and gun death rates.

But examine the actual words being used, and you quickly see the deceit: Gun death rate.
Not homicide rate. Not violent crime rate. Not suicide rate. Not rape or anything else. Gun death.

What, exactly, is a "gun death"?
It's anyone killed by a gun, for any reason - suicide, homicide, justified homicide, accident. It is the equivalent of saying that greater access to guns leads to more deaths by gun, in much the same way that greater access to anything would result in more deaths by that thing. Whether it is swimming pools, cars, kitchen knives - if you have them, someone will eventually die as a result of them, and so you can show and correlate kitchen knives with the kitchen knife death rate quite clearly.

But that doesn't mean kitchen knives are turning people into criminals and murderers.

So what do the statistics look like when you look at something more relevant, like overall homicide, suicide, rape, etc. vs gun ownership?
Like this

There is no correlation. That's why the anti-gun rhetoric focuses on deceiving you with the "gun death rate"; the actual statistics do not back them up on ANY of it.

The spree shootings make up ~0.003% of the total homicide rate. Gun ownership doesn't correlate with homicide, violent crime, rape, or suicide. Rifles are used in less than 5% of overall firearm homicides, with by far the majority coming from handguns. Almost all the firearm homicide is a result of inner city gangs shooting each other in densely populated urban centers; over 60% (in some places more than 80%) of the victims already have a criminal record!

The more I look into all the data I can find, the more I find that guns have absolutely nothing to do with any of the problems the US faces.

Comment Re:land of the the free ? (Score 1) 563

What is stunningly stupid are people who don't know the first thing about guns attempting to regulate and ban them.
Why, it'd be like people who don't know the first thing about computers, or networks, attempting to regulate and ban them.

Nobody who knows a thing or two about guns has anything but contempt for a congressional district representative who starts describing "shoulder things that go up" or a state senator who talks about "ghost guns with 30 caliber clips".

The few anti-gun laws that DO get passed, are full of nonsense like this. These laws are created by clueless morons who quite frankly hurt the entire anti-gun position far more than they have ever helped it.

And for those who still wonder about the actual effects of firearm ownership on violent crime, homicide, suicide and so forth, I invite you to read through the following:

Comment Re: Not ill timed... (Score 1) 633

This also happened in Canada, sans SWAT teams.

The RCMP reclassified some firearms after they had been classified and legally sold in Canada. Overnight they made many thousands of Canadians into criminals through no fault of the citizens. Literally their firearms were legal to own one day, then illegal to own the next. Even worse, the criminal codes in Canada demand minimum sentencing (I believe, 3-5 years) if indicted for gun-related crimes, like owning a prohibited weapon. So even if the judge took pity on the citizens involved, they would have been facing jail time no matter what. Thankfully the RCMP and government didn't actually go after anyone.

After this happened, the Conservatives passed some legislation taking away the ability of the RCMP to reclassify firearms like this. In addition to some smaller things like integrating the ATT (Authorization to transport form) from being a separate piece of paper to being a part of your firearms license, and allowing your guns to be taken away if you're ever accused of domestic abuse.

Speaking of the RCMP and government going after people - We had a short-lived firearm registry, it didn't help solve any crimes, it cost a lot of money, and it ultimately got scrapped. But that didn't stop the RCMP from keeping the list of registered firearms in their database anyways, nor did it stop them from using that list to illegally confiscate firearms during flooding in Alberta a few years ago.

Anyone who says that gun registration preceeds gun confiscation is 100% correct. The actions of the Canadian government and RCMP have proven it.

Comment Re:Opportunities are not equal for everyone (Score 1) 182

You go off about sexism, racism, bigotry and so forth as the primary points of discrimination.

I've found that it's none of those in practice. Instead it's who you've networked with and how much money you have.

Funny how the social justice warriors never focus on the real inequalities in our society. Maybe the fact that most of them come from well-off families has a part to play in that.

Comment Open to abuse, by design (Score 4, Insightful) 399

Notice how "evidence" and "courts" aren't words used anywhere in this.

Write a script to automatically file rape claims against every male in the school. It gets held by the escrow service, so the university can't even see the fact that everyone has a rape claim against them, at least, not until they've asked for the data during an investigation.

Someone eventually escalates some situation or another and the university pulls the data on the person and - Woah, 33 pre-existing rape claims! You're expelled buddy! And then this gets shared with every other university, and you make newspaper headlines, so all google searches of your name turn up rape accusations and, well, good luck ever getting a job or college education for the rest of your life.

And all this, without a single court getting involved.

"Social Justice"? More like modern Salem witch trials.

Comment Re:Ah, arXiv (Score 1) 41

Can you explain to me why a "fringe" scientist (err... controversial person...?) shouldn't be allowed to speak on Arxiv? I just find it really curious that you immediately imply it's okay to censor a certain kind of speech you don't personally like. I mean, you're pretty much using the No True Scotsman fallacy right here; if the OP comes up with a name you can just declare him to not be a "real" scientist and you'll never be proven wrong.

You either have an open forum and the idiots that come with that, or you don't. Arxiv would, frankly, do better with natural meritocratic filtering options - like science is meant to be based upon! - than to allow petty bureaucrats to control what is and is not considered science. We already HAVE methods to discard junk science: It's fundamental to how the scientific method works. Censoring people just because they present "controversial" ideas - that isn't science. That isn't just not science, that is pretty much the exact opposite of how science is supposed to work.

Comment Disagree with all the options (Score 1) 239

Just getting there first isn't good enough - someone drops a bunch of probes on every asteroid and now what - they own all of it?

There's only one option that's going to be true regardless of what you believe, and that's the might makes right point of view: The guy who is actively exploiting the asteroid gets whatever rights he wants with it, whether or not anyone else agrees with that. Whether or not they put a probe on that asteroid or there's a law in the US saying it's illegal.

He's there, and doing something with it. They're not.

Comment Germany for protection from US? (Score 4, Interesting) 173

To me, it just seems like Microsoft wants to look like they're trying to protect data from the US government's snooping, rather than actually working to protect data from US government snooping.

Germany is one of the last places I'd go to escape US intelligence agencies. Microsoft would've been more believable if they'd partnered up with relatively neutral parties like Iceland or Switzerland.

Comment Re:Do Canadian Scientists respect the public? (Score 1) 197

I have to wonder if the muzzling will begin again, once the scientists start disagreeing with a liberal party policy? If, for example, it turns out that gun control doesn't actually do anything to stop crime - and that enforcement of it, much like with drugs, is basically wasted money - will the liberal party go, "Oh... I guess we were wrong about that"?

It's all sunshine and roses right now, but the scientists aren't actually saying anything that goes against the liberal party ideology at the moment. The real test of them putting their money where their mouth is, would be when they continue to support open discourse and dialogue even when it disagrees with what the party believes.

Slashdot Top Deals

A good supervisor can step on your toes without messing up your shine.