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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Re: Actual Threats Need Not Apply (Score 1) 309

Yep. No liberal I know votes democrat because they trust the politicians or has any faith in them delivering on election promises. They vote democrat because if they dont the republicans would give big red button to a batshit insane lunatic.

Better a bad but sane president than a batshit crazy one. Good candidates dont get to be an option anymore.

And this is what's wrong with America. Everyone votes for the lesser of two evils, so the Rs and Ds have no reason to change. Only when you stop living in fear and vote third party will there be any change.

Comment Re:Laws (Score 1) 822

It was also written at a time when groups of armed men could defend themselves against a belligerent government.

Now that the government has tanks, cruise missiles, and nuclear weapons, a pistol or machine gun won’t stop them. Hence, we don’t need to own guns.

Good point; a modern interpretation of the second amendment should include the right to military grade hardware.

Comment Re:Sure, I'll take you up on that (Score 1) 591

The reason I think being authoritarian is the best approach in certain times is because it objectively is. Let me explain: I have a close family member who's a cancer survivor. She is a child. She received treatment and she is fine now (more or less). There are sizable numbers of people who would have not treated her and instead prayed to God. She would have died. That is a fact. What ever else you believe or don't believe that is a fact. This is not hypothetical. There have been cases where folks with strong religion had their children taken away from them because they choose to "Trust in the Lord". I know you've got a dozen things to say to my story above about how/why it was OK to be authoritarian in the cases above. But the fact is you're being authoritarian. There is such a thing as an authority. It's possible to be right and it's possible to be wrong. Then again you might just wash your hands. Sorting out right and wrong is _hard_. It requires real work and real compromises. It's much, much easier to just wash your hands and say "Oh fuck it, I don't want to impose my beliefs". It's especially seductive because it lets you ignore all the real world suffering by telling yourself you'd only make things worse. But that's a half assed cop out that doesn't save any lives.

So you're suggesting it's objectively better that no one ever die? Or should we only save them if it doesn't cost very much? What if it's a million dollars? A billion?

Comment Re:I would laugh but that's too much effort (Score 1) 253

You don't want DSL. The fastest DSL is slower than the worst cable connection Comcast or Charter can make. It's better and faster to get two teenage boys with semaphore flags and binoculars than to attempt DSL.

That's interesting, because in my area Frontier offers 25 Mbit DSL, and I'm getting 25 Mbit cable from Comcast.

Comment Re:Why not start now..and take if further? (Score 1) 373

Actually....why NOT start basis fares on weight? It would maybe encourage people TO actually try to live and eat healthier. A heavier person does require more fuel,, it isn't a discriminating factor based on a person's looks, but upon a cold hard cash factor in that it is more $$ to fly that person than someone that weighs less. I know the money is a drop in the bucket on one flight, but it adds up significantly over the airlines' fleets.

I'd be all for that.

Sure. Sounds great. Now, why don't we just take it a little bit further. Males statistically weigh more than females. Taller, stronger, more muscle build by nature. Why don't we charge males more than females to fly?

If airlines start charging by weight, they will charge the average male more than the average female. As a male, this does not offend me.

Comment Re:correlation, causation (Score 1) 387

Actual feminism is as much about hatred as the civil rights movement was in the 60s. You are confusing some very vocal idiots with the rest of the movement. "Feminist" is what you call someone when they think men and women should be treated equally. That's it. It's got "fem" in the name because currently women are getting the raw deal at the moment. If women were in disproportionately in control, men had lower wages, were denied opportunities, etc. then it would be called "masculism" and the end goal would be the same - equality between the sexes.

If it's about equality, why isn't it called "egalitarianism"?

Comment Re:We need to stop big tax dodgers useing loop hol (Score 1) 300

Taxing income taxes you for ripping people off.

I guess this is where you and I disagree. I don't consider charging enough to make a living ripping people off. Assuming sufficient competition and lack of collusion, consumers will have a choice of whether they consider my offer to be a good value to them, or whether they want to shop elsewhere.

Comment Re:We're the best country in the world!!! Woo!! (Score 1) 357

No they don't. Most laws deal with the concept of propertional action. That is that you are allowed to break some laws to stop someone else from breaking worse laws, but you are not allowed to break a much worse law to stop a minor one (murder vs trespassing),

So if someone who's bigger than you decides to trespass, maybe steal some of your stuff, but not actually physically harm you, you're SOL?

Comment Re:In otherwards (Score 1) 664

Well isn't that the very issue I am talking about? Libertarians pick and choose which liberties they support and do not support. That they often oppose worker liberty in subordination to owner liberty is telling.

I know, right? Can't they see that the only true liberty is the liberty to work at the job of your choice for the salary of your choice?

Comment Re:A projection of what? (Score 1) 433

What do you mean it was proven wrong? It never was, and it hasn't been yet. It probably can't be. (Well, except in the sense that Newtonian Mechanics was wrong.)

Sure it was. We now understand the laws of gravity (to within a marginal percent, anyway). Orbiting bodies have orbital periods corresponding with their distance from the center body and the weight of the center body. The planets all orbit the sun, and the moon orbits the earth.

Comment Re:Because Apple (Score 1) 292

Apple was a pioneer of an accounting technique known as the “Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich,” which reduces taxes by routing profits through Irish subsidiaries and the Netherlands and then to the Caribbean. Today, that tactic is used by hundreds of other corporations — some of which directly imitated Apple’s methods, say accountants at those companies.

Apple literally invented the technique. Others followed to compete.

Personally, I support any and all means of tax avoidance, so I don't count it against them. But I love bursting Apple Fanboys bubbles.

Oddly enough, that usually involves saying Apple didn't invent something.

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]