Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Politics is tyranny (Score 2) 179

Yes, let's bring in a business leader to protect the environment (since he makes money from...), or a business leader to police the people, or a business person to jail people who do bad things like assault or steal or murder. We of course subcontracted the whole making laws thing out to a business person. They will totally not use their greed to game the system to their advantage, like all the business people in the history of the world who did so.

Libertarian principles of a totally capitalistic society: great in concept, hugely stupid in reality. Like when that guy who ran a prison system got caught after years of paying off a judge to make sentences for juveniles harsher.

Comment Re:Politics is tyranny (Score 1) 179

Once again, a completely muddled understanding of what the word 'tyranny' means. It's literally impossible to have a conversation who views every decision made by a politician as a tyrannical one. Both sides are bad. All sides are bad.

This is the forum equivalent of screaming 'Help I'm being oppressed! I'm being oppressed.' And it's not constructive and defeatist and obviously since you're picking Slashdot to post this it is entirely counterproductive. Instead of doing something about it, simply whine about how no one sees all the horribleness you see every day.

Comment Re:Politics is tyranny (Score 1) 179

So, what you're saying it, if you filter tyranny through enough people, it isn't tyranny anymore? In other words, the large companies that have been described as having tyrannical management don't have it so long as the CEO's iron-fisted rule goes through the VP, to an executive, to a senior manager, to a manager, and finally, to your team lead? Even if the same message is heard from the start to the finish of the conversation?

I'm saying it isn't tyranny, period. I'm saying you don't know what tyranny is, you've never lived under it, and your third grade understanding of it is tiresome.

The closest we have to tyranny in the US is racism, the drug war and the prison industrial system. People are actively fighting it, and it isn't endemic.

The second you assign every problem in the world to 'tyranny' is when you lose me. Hey but that's why you're anonymous, right, so you can simply spew troll sh*t all over a board.

Comment Re:Politics is tyranny (Score 1) 179

I don't see a problem at all with having a conversation with someone. The problem is the belief that we need "leadership" to make rules our neighbors have to live by. I don't see that there's any comparison between those two things.

Well, until you become a completely self-sustaining individual your concept is incredibly short-sighted. I've read those self-sustaining books. Just find five acres and a cow, right? A nice stream near it. Grow your own sh*t, right? Well, are you doing this all alone? If not, you need someone to run it. That requires basic leadership and rules to live by.

OK let's say you run it all solo. How are you going to keep the cows in their pasture? Maybe a fence, right? Well you'll probably need some metal for that, where are you going to get that? You going to mine it all yourself, then smith it? Not a lot of time to do that when you're all day in the fields. What happens when you get sick? What about energy, where are you going to get your energy? What happens when you have too much corn, you just gonna dump it? What if you can't grow hay and have a bunch of additional corn?

Once you add a single independent person to your equation, now you live in a society. And societies have rules, and they have leaders. And in our society, we elect those leaders. In some societies, people obtain leadership through brute force. It's not pretty.

Comment Re:Politics is tyranny (Score 1) 179

All this talk about domination and subjugation is not constructive. You are conflating government with politics with no subtlety. We have three branches, so at what point does an elected Congressman rule? (And please don't tell me Speaker, Boehner can barely keep his own party in check. Hell his second in command Cantor couldn't even keep his seat.) How about a judge? Judges can't make laws, only rule on existing ones. And those executives, the ones running things? They also cannot make laws.

As far as ruling goes, yes the executives we elect can do things, things we do not always agree about, but they are generally checked by other bodies. And the great thing about politics is that politicians, the people you and me vote for (or don't vote for) are ultimately elected by people. And those people have opinions. And those opinions can and do change. And when you share an unpopular opinion it can make you unpopular. Most politicians try not to share their unpopular opinions, at least the ones unpopular to their constituents.

Sandwiched in between all of this is the fact that legislatures are expected to help write laws and to get them passed. That's their job in the end. And this is when it becomes important to distinguish policies and politics from government.

George W. Bush was not a good president. Did he dominate me personally? No. Did he sign laws I disagreed with and do things I wouldn't do? Yes. But that's what happens when we live in a functioning government. He was a terrible president, yet the world didn't fall apart under him, the country survived. Roads continue to get paved, police and firemen still do their job, I can find things I need from markets, and I don't live every day in fear. Not so bad if you ask me.

Comment Re:Politics is tyranny (Score 2) 179

Does Facebook make it harder for people with different political views to get along?

Politics is about making other people do what you think is right. It's just like forcing your religion on someone except that somehow if there's not a God involved it's considered to be morally acceptable. It's the worst form of blind faith in the face of evidence to the contrary, and it's used to justify tyranny.

I really disagree with this assertion that politics is all about dominance. In skipping directly to tyranny you fail to see the positive aspects of debate and personal influence - is it bad to try to make someone see something different? Are people incapable of changing their opinions with time and wisdom? Are you removing someone's choice by having a conversation with them?

A problem happens when both sides become intractable on issues. What you're really talking about is what we've got today, incredibly polarized politics, a political system rigged to extremes (largely due to gerrymandering), with few moderates and quite a few people trying to bash each other over the head about ideas.

The problem I struggle with is when I see that an idea is bad, and the data suggests it's bad, and yet it's somehow subject for debate. Economics and taxation is somewhat debatable (to a degree). What isn't? Well, global warming denial, creationism, anti-vaccination bullsh*t. People who think, in a world where water in certain places is becoming increasingly scarce, that we should potentially pollute the water supply without some rigorous studies.

I think a lot of people go to Facebook to see pictures of babies and cat pics and impersonally catch up with friends and maybe find something funny or like what someone's up to. I like Facebook for that reason, in other words it's a positive source for me. I don't go to Facebook to see a friend of mine talking about putting landmines in his yard because there were some recent breakins (yes that happened and no i dont think he was joking). I try really hard not to push my political agenda, especially as much of some of my friends. But when I find something politically offensive in its utter awfulness, something most people wouldn't hear about, or about a candidate I like that maybe not everyone knows about, I post it, to inform those around me.

It's not about dominating friends, it's about informing them. People can come to their own conclusions, everyone has their own life history, and they can disagree with me if they want. But I don't think it's evil to try to influence someone or ask questions about the reasons they feel one way or another. And I rarely push, except perhaps with my parents, because they are quite intelligent and yet my dad has listened to Rush Limbaugh for far too long and my mom is a single-issue voter.

Comment Re:Two things (Score 1) 247

Whether the law exists or doesn't at an international level doesn't matter. In your discussion of state laws applying to an international framework, you are making a false equivalence.

In the case of war crimes and trade law, some effort is put forth by various governments and international courts. Enforcement is available. So to say suddenly that countries can or should do whatever they want within their own legal frameworks is frankly stupid. Lots of countries have much less stable governments than the US. Genocide is a perfect example. If a nation state determined that genocide was legal and started murdering the population, would you simply put forth trade restrictions?

You do know that the US works with Interpol to stop cybercrime, right? That is the very definition of extra-territorial jurisdiction. You seem way out of your depth here, and as I said your ideas seem really poorly thought out.

Comment Re:Two things (Score 1) 247

1) Going to another country simply to resign is not the sanest action.

2) We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country. Any country that refuses to abide by this simple rule (I'm including my own beloved United States which routinely violates this simple legal concept.), should have punitive trade restrictions placed on them.

When I'm in New York state, I have to abide by NYS laws, not New Jerseys. Similarly, when I am in the US, I should abide by the US laws, not any other countries.

#2 is a really poorly thought out idea, in all manner of ways.

When you're in NYS you have to abide by NYS AND US laws. When you're in the US there's no way to force you to abide by US AND international law, which for the most part has no teeth.

Some eastern european country could declare cybercrime completely legal, and now those criminals are not criminals in that country. Not that we have any power to enforce it now.

Comment Re:Hmmm (Score 1) 205

Let me guess, you live in the city?

Crossovers and SUVs have definitely taken from the minivan market but there's no question that minivans are going to be here for a while. They are very convenient and IMO more comfortable than the SUVs we tried, especially at the price. The minivan we got was at least 10-15k less than a comparable SUV, plus fuel economy is better and IMO the interior is so much more comfortable for long trips than other vehicles.

The biggest disappointment has been fuel effiency. The minivans in general have done very little in the Hybrid space, you don't really get your money's worth if you want a Hybrid minivan. Guess what? The vast majority of SUVs have worse fuel efficiency.

I've got a Sienna with a V6, it has some sweet power and acceleration. Not to mention the car has been around forever so there are very few major issues with it. My only major concern is front passenger side safety, which is not as good as the rest of the car.

I'm not bothered by that soccer mom bullsh*t. In fact I typically drive an older Camry and I'd gladly get in the minivan over that thing.

If you live or work in the city though, minivans are far less convenient - they are big, hard to park, and not hipster enough for you. In the suburbs, they are perfect.

Do you suffer painful elimination? -- Don Knuth, "Structured Programming with Gotos"

Working...