Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:I do not understand (Score 1) 538

if you're a Democrat, you probably don't see the use of school shooting incidents as justification for laws that violate the Second Amendment to be examples of "for the children", while I do.

That depends on what you mean. If you're talking about the sudden push for banning guns that happens after every school shooting, then yes I do find it to be one. If you're talking about using the relative statistics of school shootings in the US vs. other countries, then I find that to be a valid, and not a "for the children" argument, as it's typically brought up with other statistics to cover the entirety of gun-related crime/etc.

As an aside, you're stretching the Second Amendment's meaning if you think that all gun control violates it; not even the NRA thinks that. I live in a state where it's easier to get a gun than a car, and I find that to be ridiculous. I would be for tighter licensing controls, at least to the level of cars - why do I have to prove I can safely drive a car before I'm allowed a license to drive, but I can wander around in public with a gun without any kind of license, or that I can buy one without any evidence that I'm even remotely competent at gun safety?

Likewise, the "have the government make this decision because it will decide more intelligently than the parents can" argument is almost-entirely a Democrat thing. It's not a "for your children" argument, it's a "for those other parents' children

Once again, that's a false argument. Nearly everything the government does - in fact, pretty much the entire point of having a government involved in any kind of regulation - is to do this. The point is minimum standards, and the general safety of the citizens. And the fallacy you're bringing up here is that what parents do with their children only affect their children. The current anti-vaxxer bullshit is a perfect example of this - the government didn't step in when it should have (by requiring kids going to school to be properly vaccinated), and now we've got measles and whooping cough and other nearly-eradicated diseases having major outbreaks. These outbreaks put more than just those unvaccinated individuals at risk - they also affect those with weak immune systems, babies too young for vaccines, people who got the vaccine but it just didn't take, etc. by interfering with the herd immunity.

All sorts of health, safety, and education mandates fall into that category, such as the Democrat hostility to alternatives to public schools.

Hate to tell you this, but that hostility you're talking about isn't just Democrats, and among Democrats it isn't even close to a universal belief. I am assuming you're talking about diverting public funds to private schools here, in which case the typical reaction against it - which I've heard from Democrats and Republicans alike - is "if the school's not doing good enough because it's underfunded, why are we taking money away from them instead of using it to fix them". Unless you're talking about the whole "public schools are actually liberal brainwashing programs made to teach kids that Jesus isn't real" thing I hear occasionally - at which point you're a crazy fucking idiot and have no idea what you're talking about.

Comment: Re:I do not understand (Score 1) 538

protecting citizens' rights in the face of "for the children"

Democrats are just as willing to use that canard, they just use it to support violation of different rights than Republicans do.

I never claimed they don't - both the "for the children" and "war on terror" crap is used by opportunists in both parties to use emotionally charged rhetoric to distract from the actual effectiveness of their pet laws. Democrats are just more likely to run on a platform of opposition to that thinking than Republican candidates are.

Comment: Re:Why are you guys relying on Republicans? (Score 1) 538

To my limited knowledge of the American politics, _any_ citizen of the United States of America who are not charged with crime can run for political office

Actually, as Marion Barry shows, that's not a requirement. You can definitely both serve and run for election while charged, or even convicted and sitting in prison.

Comment: Re:I do not understand (Score 2, Insightful) 538

For democrats, it mainly comes down to the belief that their guy will give them free stuff (money for nothing, chicks for free.)

No, for Democrats it comes down to hoping that they'll make the hard/unpopular choices of keeping the environment clean, protecting citizens' rights in the face of "for the children" and "or the terrorists win" crap, etc.. Unfortunately, they (like the Republicans) are typically more interested in getting corporate sponsorships to get re-elected, and will generally sell out everything they pretend to believe in to get it.

For republicans, it mainly comes down to "is he conservative enough" without any clear definition of what "conservative" actually is.

That sounds pretty accurate.

Comment: Re:Little-known fact (Score 2) 140

by The Rizz (#49398745) Attached to: Building an NES Emulator

Maybe they were just smart and saw the writing on the wall for coin operated games.

I think Nintendo were the ones who wrote it on the wall - the NES was the first real competition for coin-op arcades. Sure, other home systems already existed, but they were far, far behind arcade hardware's level of quality. The NES wasn't there yet, either, but it brought quality levels a lot closer than anything in the past ever had, and expanded into areas the arcade machines couldn't, with the concept of epic games with save/load features (Zelda, Metroid, etc.).

Comment: So, everything? (Score 1) 331

by The Rizz (#49357079) Attached to: Amazon Requires Non-Compete Agreements.. For Warehouse Workers

The absolute worst part of this is that it effectively covers any job involved in any way with "any product or service sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon" ...which, since Amazon does a little of everything means that it effectively says "you agree not to work anywhere for 18 months after you quit or are fired."

Comment: Re:There might not be Proper English (Score 5, Insightful) 667

by The Rizz (#49264531) Attached to: Why There Is No Such Thing as 'Proper English'

I would agree. And I think the notion of teaching "Proper English" is less about saying common usage is wrong than it is with trying to slow down the fragmentation of the language into dialects. If you can teach one set of rules for the language as being "correct" and make sure everyone understands it that way, then at least you have a common starting point for all the different dialects, and hopefully keep people ostensibly speaking the same language actually able to understand each other.

Comment: Re:Sounds like horseshit to me. (Score 2) 172

by The Rizz (#49263257) Attached to: Lawsuit Over Quarter Horse's Clone May Redefine Animal Breeding

I don't think they "care" whether they're made in some deep volcanic process or in an industrial plant. They're still... DIAMONDS!

Frankly, I'd go out of my way to NOT buy "real" diamonds but find the manufactured ones, instead. I'll choose the ones not supporting murder, borderline slave labor, and multinational anti-competitive practices and price fixing.

Comment: Re:innovation (Score 1) 172

by The Rizz (#49263219) Attached to: Lawsuit Over Quarter Horse's Clone May Redefine Animal Breeding

Please tell me you are just trolling. Breeding is an integral part of the sport. You can't make it irrelevant and have the same sport, and you have in no way explained how that us better.

Please tell me you are just trolling. You can't just say breeding is an integral part of the sport, and you have in no way explained why it is or should be, or how it is better. Why can't you make it irrelevant and have the same sport?

Comment: Re:Is it sad that it is old hat (Score 2) 224

by The Rizz (#49239507) Attached to: California Looking To Make All Bitcoin Businesses Illegal

You only need about 1000 customers to run a successful bar. That's a tiny fraction of the population of most cities.

Yes, but quite often the number who don't want the bar is even less. A very vocal minority rails against what they find immoral while dismissing claims that people want it - because if they want it, those people are dirty immoral deviants and should be ignored, anyway, right? This is the tyranny of the minority, and it happens constantly in politics.

Comment: Re:Is it sad that it is old hat (Score 4, Insightful) 224

by The Rizz (#49238881) Attached to: California Looking To Make All Bitcoin Businesses Illegal

Lots of communities CITIZENS don't want strip clubs or pawn shops or porn shops or Walmarts or whatever; but they aren't illegal and the community can't outlaw them outright.. so the local government's mazes of red-tape to make opening such a business in the community difficult are simply a reflection of what the community wants implemented with the tools they have available to them.

This is pure and complete bullshit. If the community's citizens didn't want such a business there, the business would get no customers and close down naturally. What actually is happening is that a cabal of Bible-thumping prudes who wish to impose their sense of morality upon others forces these laws through in order to control the larger population.

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.