Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 0) 671

by drinkypoo (#47712321) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I'm a different AC, but I think you made his point. "You are unlikely to see another human being for days" in those hundreds (is it really thousands?) of square miles precisely "because practically nobody lives there or will ever go there."

Yes, I did. I also made the point that his point is irrelevant. We're talking about a minuscule proportion of the population. It's not that their wishes should be ignored, exactly; I believe that creation and protection of rights is a valid pursuit. But "It is virtually impossible for people to not run into each other," is still a completely valid statement. Virtually nobody lives in a situation where they won't see other people. Someone always turns up, if only for a sample of something. Maybe you. And frankly, there really is nowhere like you describe in the USA, either. There's a number of large private ranches of thousands of acres; those guys often have stories of trespassers. And a large portion of the country is owned by the Bureau of Land Management, which regularly portions big sections of it off for military and police training, and which patrols it regularly and investigates fires, target shooters in hunting season and hunters out of season, and the like. Then there's the big state parks, which are full of state park rangers on horses and in Jeep of various types, and IIRC Chevy trucks. They manage to cover quite a bit of ground.

So yes, it is virtually impossible to not run into people. You have to go to significant lengths, especially since people are actually looking for people in those supposedly empty places. Sure, you could get lost in the asscrack of some mountain somewhere, but even getting there is beyond the reach of many people. Only a tiny slice of the world population even lives away from someplace where you can avoid seeing people for more than a few minutes at a time.

Comment: Re:Hydroelectric Dams (Score 1) 415

by nine-times (#47711373) Attached to: Solar Plant Sets Birds On Fire As They Fly Overhead

About 40,000 people die in car accidents every year, in the US alone. It's one of those things that I keep pointing out because people keep seeming to fail to realize how many people that is. When people say, "We can't have solar power because it'll kill a thousand birds!" or "We can't have freedom (i.e. NSA spying and CIA torture is ok!) because otherwise we might have another 9/11, which killed a thousands of people!"

40,000 people die every year due to car accidents. Nobody is talking about giving up cars.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 4, Interesting) 671

by drinkypoo (#47703329) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

AmiMojo counts sentiments like yours as proof of hate. If you disagree (or ask for meaningful evidence) that the problem is all around us and unbearable then you obviously support misogyny.

When you ask for meaningful evidence of misogyny on slashdot (or wider society) you only underscore your blindness to the problem. You shouldn't need anyone to point out examples, because an intelligent person would be able to find a discussion and skim it. When you learn to use the internets, you'll spend a lot less time whining.

Every woman I know well enough to tell me whether she has been raped has been raped. (I don't ask, obviously.) Either you live in a magical fairy world where women are treated better than they are in Northern California, or women don't trust you well enough for you to know how serious the problem is. And let me tell you, based on your statements, I am something less than shocked.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 0) 671

by drinkypoo (#47703289) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

There are literally thousands of square miles in the western U.S. where you
are unlikely to see another human being for days, if ever.

You didn't log in because you know this is an idiot argument, because practically nobody lives there or will ever go there. You're addressing essentially no percentage of the population.

We don't have ASBOs or much of the other nanny state bullshit


No, instead we have a probation system. Know anything about it? Apparently not.

Keep your nanny state bullshit to yourself, buddy, we don't want OR NEED some twit
like you telling us what is acceptable. You see, WE in the U.S. are citizens, not

Keep telling yourself that. It has already been shown that this is an Oligarchy. You are only fooling yourself. Idiot, stop telling tales.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 4, Insightful) 671

by drinkypoo (#47703251) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change. It is not a political opinion, and it is not acceptable.

What? Fuck you sideways. I mean, I personally have no problem whatsoever with lesbigaytrangenderedetc people but I will stand up for anyone's right to do so. I get off the bus before it gets to the stop where you're permitted to treat people with prejudice when you're in a position of power. If I am a public figure who has a responsibility to people regardless of their sexual orientation, ideally you would have no idea what my personal position in fact is because I would do my job and it would not matter.

Further, there's plenty of gay people who don't like straight people, or don't like straight people of certain kinds. Are you going to go tell them that's not okay? Or is it still acceptable to hate on nominally white, nominally straight males?

Furthermore, note that "disliking homosexuals" is marginal, even among evangelical Christian organizations [...] "God loves the homosexual."

If you're going to start claiming that evangelical christians are like god, then you're really going to have to deal with an endless deluge of laughter and derision.

The key issue for LGBT rights activists is freedom to marry, which is "equal treatment under the law," not "equality of outcome."

No, no it is not. The key issue for LGBT rights activists is equality, which is "equal treatment under the law". It is a mark of how far our society has not come that we are actually arguing over one specific aspect of equality with such fervor. Next, we will get to move onto the next aspect of equality, still without actually recognizing that homosexuals are human beings who deserve equal protection under the law to every other human being. Instead, we continue to treat them like a subclass, and make them beg, plead, and finally fight for each individual right. Perhaps soon we will permit them to sit in the front of the bus.

Comment: Re: Amost sounds like a good deal ... (Score 5, Insightful) 370

by causality (#47699789) Attached to: Rightscorp's New Plan: Hijack Browsers Until Infingers Pay Up

You cannot prove a negative.

Sure you fucking can. Anything defined in such a way as to exclude other possible definitions can have the latter definitions be proven in the negative just as surely as the former definition can be in the positive.

3 != 4. A triangle is not a square. Red is not blue. Hydrogen is not helium. A dog is not a cat. If the coin landed heads-up, the coin did not land tails-up. If someone was in location A at time T, they could not have been in location B at time T committing crime C. You are not smart.

In your examples you are not actually proving a negative (that something didn't happen). You are proving that something is not possible or could not have happened.

Possible or not possible are easy by comparison. Proving a negative means, "take this thing that really could have possibly happened, and prove that it didn't happen". A shape cannot both be a triangle and a square. A pure color at a single wavelength cannot both be red and blue. You are drastically underestimating the scope of how difficult it is to prove a negative. "This couldn't have happened because it is impossible" is actually a positive claim and as such, can be proven.

Comment: Re:Automation, remote controls already exist (Score 1) 237

Automation is here. Being paranoid about one particular application of it won't help anyone.

It's scary because cars are already deadly and already everywhere. If you give them inadequate security (got) and an internet connection (some have, some are getting) and oh, also make them self-driving (on the way) then their very ubiquity makes the threat realistic. There's not that many people out there with a nice quadcopter capable of long-range flight who also have possession of explosives or even skill to credibly make same without blowing themselves up and you can bet that most of them are being monitored. But self-driving cars will soon be absolutely everywhere...

The universe is like a safe to which there is a combination -- but the combination is locked up in the safe. -- Peter DeVries