Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Ha ha ha ha..... (Score 1) 805

by argStyopa (#49748183) Attached to: Oregon Testing Pay-Per-Mile Driving Fee To Replace Gas Tax

And to believe that "The purpose of a cigarette tax is to either impose a penalty or to pay for public treatment for the resulting negative externalities " speaks of a naivete of government in general.

The more people want/need something, the more the government recognizes that is a revenue proposition; and in the US if you can make it a "sin" tax with just a whiff of punitivity, all the better.

Comment: Ah, good play (Score 2) 95

by argStyopa (#49739501) Attached to: Do Russian Uranium Deals Threaten World Supply Security?

Make sure the discussion is about whether this is dangerous to the world uranium supply (it isn't), and not about the president/presidential candidate team that took $millions$ from one of the USs main geopolitical opponents to secure said deal.

90% of magic is making sure the audience is looking where you want them to be looking.

Comment: Ha ha ha ha..... (Score 2, Insightful) 805

by argStyopa (#49736037) Attached to: Oregon Testing Pay-Per-Mile Driving Fee To Replace Gas Tax didn't REALLY think that by driving your electric or hybrid car that you were going to permanently somehow avoid the government's rapacious tax-addiction, did you?

It's just like the cigarette taxes or any of the 'sin' taxes: they've worked so hard to get people to stop smoking, they are suddenly realizing they're losing revenue.

There's no question that we need to pay taxes for the roads we drive on.
Formerly, the connection between general road use and gasoline was irrefutable; now they need another mechanism.

Comment: Re:Gerrymandering (Score 2, Insightful) 598

by argStyopa (#49725331) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

Nice try, but Republicans have been the minority since they were a party. Your "they just gerrymandered" their way to success can't logically explain their regular ~50% success at the polls.

Their success electorally has to do with the fact that they're generally (until the relatively-recent evangelical swarm) the party of grownups who have jobs & families, understand cause/effect, understand TAANSTAFL, and participate much more deliberately in the political process.

This is not to assert - as you have - that "only one party" does it. Hardly; both parties routinely and aggressively gerrymander whenever they have the chance. In fact, you might want to check your etymology: the very WORD "gerrymander" came from Gov Elbridge Gerry - - a Democratic-Republican (whose party's spiritual descendant are today's Democrats).

And in terms of future opportunities, I have to say that it's obvious the current GOP leadership are deeply incompetent, as you're right, they have missed the ability to connect with potential hispanic voters who "should be" natural Republicans with their religiosity, hard-work ethic, and general conservatism. If the GOP leadership does at some point wake up to this, I wouldn't be terrified for the future of the GOP.

Comment: mistaken parallels (Score 3, Interesting) 284

by argStyopa (#49717559) Attached to: The Auto Industry May Mimic the 1980s PC Industry

The article dismisses the significant difference between the auto industry and the computer industry: if your computer is a piece of crap, it's just some lost $. (ie the only thing lost is some money and perhaps time). If your car is badly made, it can quite easily kill you and your family in a host of interesting ways.

This means that buyer conservatism is high, and willingness to 'experiment' is extremely low.

You'll notice in similar industries where computer equipment is of comparable mission-critical role, they are likewise extremely slow to adopt "the next big thing" and nothing like the 'retail' electronics marketplace.

So no, the automotive industry won't behave anything like the retail electronics market. Not at all.

Comment: Re:Oh shut up (Score 5, Insightful) 766

Oh stop.
To suggest that being dismissive of some wuss whinging about a MAD MAX movie contributing to the gynocracy somehow means that I would therefore not care about a son (or anyone) being falsely accused of rape is the sort of histrionics that one might have, 60 years ago, attributed to an overreacting woman.

I'm not saying that the militant feminism hasn't gone too far (it has, but I submit that's symptomatic of the overwhelming force of political correctness generally, actually). What I'm saying is:

I directly dispute our culture's determination that "anything the feminine way" is the "right" way and anything "the male way" is some sort of pathology that needs to be corrected ASAP.

Part of classical masculinity is, to me:
- if shit bothers you, you go fix it, you don't piss and moan over the fence to other people trying to gin up sympathy.
- lead by doing, not by "calling" for leadership
- there's nothing wrong with feeling emotions; there are places where displaying them is ridiculous or inappropriate
- be strong; understand some shit is trivial and not worth regarding. You give it power by whinging about it.
- understand that you are not a special snowflake
- you deserve only the respect you earn ...none of these are exemplified by men crying about the latest Mad Max film.

Comment: Tell you what (Score 1) 616

by argStyopa (#49711961) Attached to: Editor-in-Chief of the Next Web: Adblockers Are Immoral

Let's let all that "content" that is solely ad-fueled die, and we'll see what's left?

See, because I think that's pure bullshit. No, let me amend that: it's bullshit for all the content that's worth seeing.

Because, see, anyone that SELLS anything is going to see the value in connecting to customers more easily and conveniently - ergo, those sites will pay for themselves.
All the hobby sites, where Billy & friends post their dungeons and dragons house rules, well, they'll still do it because they love it.

Media sites, like say, etc have the implicit 'trade' that is the same as their physical publication: enjoy our content, and we'll trade your viewership eyeballs for ad revenue. No problem there.

The bulk of the rest of sites "fueled by ads" are none of these. ehow? Fucking worthless. Ads shoveled to me on amazon? Ebay? I'll block those, because I'm already paying them for a service in the price of the goods; if they can't support their mechanisms on that, then too bad, they die. (I suspect that they can, and ad-revenue is just another profit-mechanism.) Huffpost? Fuck off, I'd rather read my news from actual news organizations than some shitty aggregator reposting crap.

So no, I think the things that I "need" from the web already have payment mechanisms built into their models. The rest either are labors of love or can die, and I rather suspect we'll be better off.

Comment: Re:when it melts... (Score 1) 283

by argStyopa (#49704811) Attached to: Larson B Ice Shelf In Antarctica To Disintegrate Within 5 Years

Considering that we humans came after the previously-mentioned span when the Antarctic was covered in jungle, maybe you want to think that comment through?

For the slow: it's ridiculous to assert that such climactic changes will result in "a dead rock" when, ipso facto, they didn't.

Comment: a couple of points (Score 3, Informative) 42

by argStyopa (#49697399) Attached to: Galaxies Die By Slow "Strangulation"

1) just to be clear, when he says "metals" are everything more than helium, that's an astronomer thing.

2) IANAA, but the whole 'stellar starvation' thing seems logically obvious due to the iron peak - as galaxies feed on their hydrogen, their suns fuse it up all the way to iron, then they no longer are generating energy from subsequent fusion, merely consuming it (elements above iron are normally only created persistently from supernovae), ergo, once a galaxy has climbed the fusion-energy curve up to iron, beyond that it's go nowhere to go except collapse and ultimate I'd guess black hole status?

Comment: Re:it's not a plan, it's just some dude blathering (Score 0) 602

by argStyopa (#49696963) Attached to: A Plan On How To Stop Sexism In Science

(shrug) I think your histrionic response is a little unjustified.

No, of course "all women" aren't identical, nor are "all men". That's silly.

It's equally silly to deny the idea of "generalization", and to believe that everyone is some sort of uniquely individual snowflake whose behavior can't be roughly categorized. Even snowflakes behave comparably, in large enough masses. There are all sorts of behavioral planes of cleavage through the mass of humanity such as nationality: Japanese behave differently than South Americans, Scandinavians behave differently than sub-Saharan Africans. Curiously, even in their heterogeneity, Americans behave in collective and distinctive ways substantially differently than many of those groups. (look up the fantastic work by Geert Hofstede on that subject). Young people behave differently than old; rich than poor, etc. And yes, women behave differently than men, speaking in broad GENERALIZATIONS.

So I'm going to use the same language you did: stop being so butthurt and grow the fuck up, generalizations are a thing.

"Who alone has reason to *lie himself out* of actuality? He who *suffers* from it." -- Friedrich Nietzsche