Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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:Eventually, values will clash (Score 2) 609

Those laws were passed with little or no opposition from Southern society. They weren't forced on the South, they were an expression of the fear and general disdain for Southern blacks by the white majority.

You're trying desperately to let Southern whites from the end of Reconstruction until the 1960s off the hook for a general and pervasive racism by claiming the State legislatures were at fault. It's absurd and bizarre, but it's the kind of idiocy I've come to expect from Libertarians.

Comment: Re:Eventually, values will clash (Score 1) 609

The segregated South falsifies your claim. The free market in those states would quite happily have excluded blacks from the mainstream economic system in perpetuity if left to itself.

The "invisible hand" is a pile of steaming bullshit, as unevidenced a god as Yahweh.

Comment: Re:Apples and Oranges (Score 1) 609

- People who run a business (like a bakery) should be absolutely free to refuse service to anyone, at any time, with or without giving a reason. It's not the government's business. If a bakery wants to make cakes for government functions, they follow the government's rules. If the public doesn't like it, the business changes their policy or closes. Period. (Ignoring all the ways the government can visit "unrelated" reprisals on uncooperative subjects.)

Except that isn't true. The Civil Rights Act 1964 pretty much killed segregation, which based on that very claim. Generations of African Americans grew up banished from many white-run businesses based on the claim "businesses have an absolute right."

The fact is that businesses do not have absolute rights to refuse service, and have not had an absolute right in half a century.

Comment: Re:For those wanting a 'free market' solution.. (Score 1) 609

Oh bullshit. There was general social consensus in the Jim Crow states that blacks needed to be segregated, that contact between the races should be minimized as much as possible. The governments of these states were doing precisely what the majority in these states wanted.

Comment: Re:Christian Theocracy (Score 5, Insightful) 609

One brave and short-lived business. That's the problem with these laws; essentially they allow the majority to persecute the minority, under the cover of "religious freedoms". It strikes me as being no different than the same disingenuous arguments used to justify Segregation.

Comment: Re:Complete article (Score 1) 373

by MightyMartian (#49367331) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient

You may not say I'm guilty of a fallacy, I'm saying you are. It's almost as if you think simply stringing long lines of words together in some semblance of a sentence somehow represents a critique. I hesitate to call what you're line of argument has devolved to a game of semantics. More like a game of alphabet soup.

Comment: Re:Complete article (Score 3, Interesting) 373

by MightyMartian (#49367213) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient

Are you trying for the Logical Fallacy of the Year Award here? The point of AGW theory is that the changes we are seeing are not natural in origin. Instead of playing semantics, deal with what the theory states. Invoking private definitions is probably the lowest form of debate, because it's useless and accomplishes nothing.

Comment: Re:Complete article (Score 2) 373

by MightyMartian (#49366985) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient

I'm sure it's the same down in Washington State as it is up here in coastal British Columbia. Low snow pack means lower river levels, which means potential problems for irrigation in areas under cultivation, harm to fish stocks, and the potential for severe water restrictions in some areas.

I own some property out in a rural area of Central Vancouver Island, and while my house is on a civic water system, my kid and her partner live on the property in a house that gets its water from a creek that flows beside the property. They also raise pigs, using my water license. The creek swells up during rainstorms (like the one we had over the last day or so), but all in all, it's very low compared to other years this time, and I'm seriously worried that we may have to put everything on the civic system, or dig a well, and both cost $$$.

It also brings to mind the previous winter, when we had to put a new water line from the creek into the kids' house in the middle of December. First of all, it was about six or seven degrees celsius (42.8F), and I was literally clearing out the trench in jeans and a t-shirt. The soil itself, a sandy loam common in our area, was damned near bone dry a foot down. The back hoe operator was pretty amazed, and it demonstrated how the 2013-14 winter was very dry (though it did have longer cold spells).

The final anecdote to my story is that I grew up on the property, and when I was a kid back in the 1970s and 1980s, we used to skate at least two to three weeks every winter on the big pond, but now, even in the hardest cold snap, I'd be very nervous about walking far out on that ice. It just doesn't simply get as cold on Vancouver Island as it used to, and all that precipitation that should be hitting the coastal mountains and forming a good snowpack that lasts well into summer is just falling as rain.

All great ideas are controversial, or have been at one time.