Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Not that surprising (Score 1) 284

I would go so far as to say that there are few people who have a wholly self-consistent set of values. However, it's not the lack of understanding of communism or anarchism which is to blame. It's that those who style themselves communists or anarchists tend to ignore the history of their movements in their drive toward some sort of obscene ideological purity. In so doing, they end up contorting themselves in rhetorical knots, or exemplifying congnitive dissonance to an extreme degree.

I am reminded of the OWS protestor who was featured on the Daily Show 11/16/11: (para).

Reporter (Samantha Bee): So you want everyone to have an iPad?

Protestor: Yes. I believe they should have access to the technology.

Reporter: So you would share your iPad with those people who don't have them?

Protestor: No. I don't believe in private property, but this is my personal property.

Comment Re:Wow-I am on the wrong website (Score 1) 284

I would beg to differ in the sense that according to the majority opinion in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts (1905):

"Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted."

Therefore, please do not assume that the wordsmithing of the preamble means anything in a legal sense as to the duties of government. Please look into the Constitution proper to determine whether it defines a 'socialist' government.

Comment Re:What about all the people USA has slaughtered (Score 2) 804

"THINK FOR YOURSELF. I would have thought Slashdot would even take into account all the controversy regarding 911 and stop just spreading the propaganda that we have been forcefed through all the mainstream sources."

Oddly enough I can think for myself and my conclusion is exactly opposite of yours, because I can contextualize things as separate events, not as one grand conspiracy.

Perhaps you should too.

Comment It's so easy to beat up on Blizzard (Score 1) 413

... if you expect that they will produce perfection always.

A lot of people grew up on WoW, and have such rosy memories of vanilla or BC. Cataclysm has been a seriously hit-or-miss expansion. Some things are awesome, and some things are terrible. Here's why:

Blizzard is trying to cater to too many factions in their playerbase. They need to please the maximum number of players in order to keep their subscriber numbers up.

There's one faction that will steamroll through content. They have 7/7 Heroic Firelands done, finished the legendary and are now bored.

There's another faction that doesn't. My guild is 2/7 Firelands -normal-, and my raid group is 0/7 Firelands because after 4 weeks we cannot down Shannox or Beth. (For all people in the previous faction, how do you find that content so easy?)

There's one faction that doesn't care at all, and there's too little for them to do. The same 5-mans all the time are obnoxious, and there seem to be far fewer of them in Cataclysm compared to Wrath.

There's a faction that cares WAY TOO MUCH about PVP. And RAGE on the FORUMS using ALL CAPS because THEIR MAIN IS SO NERFED.

And then there is the faction of players that pine over their childhood and wish that WoW never changed because it's so not cool anymore, 'cause back in the day you had to walk barefoot up Blackrock mountain with 39 friends to get a rare pair of shoes that has a 10% chance to drop off a boss that you might be able to get to after 2 hours.

I mean, how do you please all of those competing interests? You don't. You do your best and sometimes ideas just don't work out so well as you'd hoped.

Comment Re:Stop deleting stuff (Score 1) 533

Except that "truth" isn't built by consensus.

Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable. Hiding it is dangerous.

The sad part is that a lot of movements of the past few decades have bought into this mantra that truth is somewhow malleable and that reality is merely a construct of how many people believe it to be true. Shades of 1984.

Speaking Truth to Power? More like "Making crap up and calling it truth, then screaming about babykillers to to your Congressperson and buying ads in the New York Times."

Comment Re:Self-revert (Score 1) 533

Point is that this shouldn't be a problem as big as it is. We shouldn't have to waste time better spent on a "productive" task to argue with people on the talk page of an article about an edit reversion that should not have happened.

Perhaps, maybe, wikipedia editors should be held accountable for their actions. Right now, great power comes with no responsibility. Seeing a few editors get banned from the site forever would help. Lets start with any editor that has posted "Delete: See [WP:Notability]"

Comment Re:Easy reason (Score 2) 533

This this and especially this.

Wikipedia went downhill as soon as the Admins got a stick up their butt about "notability"--the Wikipedia definition of notability is so skewed as to be worthless. Very notable historical pages such as Old Man Murray get deleted, well-informed and well written articles on obscure topics get wiped clean, while at the same time there are dozens of stub articles that provide no worth.

The whole of Wikipedia is a disaster nowadays. It's run by petty dictators acting out their dreams of dictatorship. Back in the day, they would be sitting in their parents basement memorizing bus schedules. Today, thanks to the internet, they post those schedules on wikipedia and edit camp them against all the evil people who would even think of editing their masterwork.

Comment Re:Guess they will have to ban their transport too (Score 1) 733

Why do you have to resort to 'whataboutery'?

In a socially conservative area, you at least know what you're going to get, because it's patently obvious that they want to enforce judeo-christian conservative social mores.

In a Liberal place, I'd expect that your lifestyles and personal choices would be tolerated to the hilt, as long as you were responsible for your own actions, and didn't try to shove your beliefs down someone else's throat.

Except thats not true. You simply swap one set of religious morals for another set of religious morals and end up without any freedom whatsoever to simply life free of screaming governmental ninnies with personal issues.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 733

What if the animal has to eat its food alive? Pythons don't typically prosper well if it's been dead and frozen.

These idiots in the animal-rights groups don't understand a single thing about biological requirements for life. They just look at their puppies and wonder how anyone could ever love their free-range puppies as much as daddy loves his snuggie wuggums.

Comment Re:Western mindset? (Score 1) 733

Is this guy so loony that to him "Western mindset" is an indictment of some thought in and of itself? "Oh that's how we think in the UNITED STATES, so obviously that's the dumbest possible mindset." Is that what's going on here? "If we considered them living beings, we would deal with them differently." Yeah, but we don't, so why are you acting like we do or should?

Yes. He is, in fact, that loony.

To his mindset, something that is "western" is imperialist and evil, the source of all suffering in this world. If only those nasty "western" ideas and philosophies would just die out, we could live in a perfect Utopia like I heard in that John Lennon song once.

Until, you know, the guys with guns from the "east" came along to ethnically cleanse you like they did to all the other infidels.

Pascal is a language for children wanting to be naughty. -- Dr. Kasi Ananthanarayanan

Working...