Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Submission + - What Happens When Science Enables Aborting Babies With The 'Gay Gene'?->

An anonymous reader writes: Bruce Carroll writes at the Independent Journal Review, "One gets the sense these days that the once far away, anti-Utopian worlds of George Orwell, ... and Aldous Huxley are actually here. ... The crux of my concern ... is the inevitable intersection of “safe abortions” and genetic selection to weed out “undesirables.” Genetic selection has reared its head already over the past few decades in China — girls are aborted and boys are the favored gender. In the United States ... a steep reduction in the number of Down’s Syndrome babies over the last decade ... So what do the LGBTQ activists — who are mostly left-wing — do when faced with the inevitable collision of “gay rights” and “reproductive rights”? We seem to be on the verge of the science community agreeing that there are genetic underpinnings to being born gay. ... None other than ultra-conservative Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum conceded the point this week in an interview with openly-gay MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow. ... This is quite a dilemma for pro-abortion gay activists ... Donors to gay rights groups and pro-abortion groups are frequently the same individuals, and millions are exchanged between these two causes. ... gay activists frequently cite “abortion rights” as a keystone to achieving overall LGBT equality. I wonder if gay activists realize that their ... devotion to pro-abortion political organizations, and the multi-million dollar abortion industry itself, may ultimately lead to the destruction of LGBT babies before they are born within my lifetime."
Link to Original Source

Submission + - Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Personal Email Server Scandal->

cold fjord writes: The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Inspectors General from the State Department and intelligence agencies have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server while she was US Secretary of State. At issue is the possible mishandling of sensitive government information. Dozens of the emails provided by Hillary Clinton have been retroactively classified as part of the review of her emails as they are screened for public release. So far 3,000 of 55,000 emails have been released. The inspectors general found hundreds of potentially classified emails. — The Washington Examiner reports, “A federal judge warned the State Department it would "have to answer for" the destruction of Hillary Clinton's private emails if the agency doesn't "want to do anything out of the ordinary to preserve" records from her server. U. S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras also blasted the State Department for its seemingly haphazard approach to the dozens of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits seeking Clinton's private emails.”
Link to Original Source

Submission + - Isis Plotting To Use Drones To Bomb Crowds->

An anonymous reader writes: The Express reports, "Terrorists want to use the unmanned machines — available for as little as £100 on the high street — to drop explosives on large crowds at popular sporting and cultural gatherings. Defence chiefs fear they could launch a multi-drone attack carrying several bombs, even using airborne cameras to film the bloody carnage below for twisted propaganda videos. ... A counter-terrorism source said: "Islamist plotters have been trying to launch a drone-borne bomb attack for some time, as these machines are getting more hi-tech every year." Last year more than 127,000 drones were bought and sold on just eBay.
Link to Original Source

Comment Re:cold fjord (Score 1) 109 109

The first two web links are not essential to understanding the content. What they lead to is enhanced content as you indicate. You should have understood the main theme of the story based on the title which informs as to the main subject. The problem here is your comprehension not the writing.

Comment Re:cold fjord (Score 2) 109 109

That's not garbage, that's a hot load of steaming feces. It's unreadable.

Really now? Lets examine that proposition.

How the fuck can something be needed now "just as it was" then, but also "more than ever"?

Based on this sentence it appears that it actually wasn't garbage, feces (steaming or not), or unreadable. You actually did manage to read it. The problem you have is comprehension, so lets tackle that. The main problem you seem to have is one dimensional thinking. Saying that something is needed then and now establishes the need in terms of time - it is needed in both times, the first dimension. That says nothing about the urgency of the need, the degree of need, or the second dimension. That is where the qualifier "now more than ever" comes it. It is a statement that the present need is greater than the past need. That is a simple but crucial concept you can see illustrated on the following graph where the vertical axis (P) represents the Priority of resource (X), and the horizontal axis (T) represents Time. As you can see there are two points on the T(time) axis, and two points on the P(priority) axis, at points X1 and X2. Point X2 is later in time and higher priority than point X1. Resource X is needed at both points X1 and X2 on axis T, but on axis P we find that point X2 is higher representing it is needed more which can be expresses as "now more than ever" as long as the highest point on axis P is also the furthest to the right on axis T.

^ . . . . . . . X2
| X1
P/T --->

If it's needed "just as it was" then it's needed to the same degree.

Only in the absence of any other qualifier, which I in fact supplied, to indicate that the need was present in both times, but there was a disparity in the degree of need. The present need is greater.

If you keep these hints in mind you may be less prone to confusion in future forum activity.

Comment Re:There is no cure for absolute fucking stupidity (Score 1) 231 231

I've seen it before. It doesn't really change things. She wants to argue that if we give lots and lots of runway to women they can do as well as marginal men in strength. Don't you find this suggestive?

But there came a point when I could not persuade my body to perform. It wasn’t a matter of will but of pure physical strength. My mind wanted more, but my muscles quivered in failure after multiple attempts. I began to shiver as I got cold. I was told I could not continue

If she ends up with her wish, that men and women are judged by the exact same standards it will end up even worse for women than it is now. Take the "gender norming" out of the fitness tests and women's scores will plummet.

So she knows what she is talking about, and the other more experienced women that say this is an unnecessary bad idea don't? Or are their views not worth considering?

Bravery is no substitute for bravery and strength.

The whole exercise is a waste of time, there is no fundamental fact of human physiology that has changed since the last go around with this nonsense. This is purely an ideologically driven exercise to achieve wins in diversity while at the same time they throw away hard won victories on the battlefield through negligence and incompetence. I think we might have found an explanation for this policy.

Comment Re:He has a talent for understatement (Score 0) 305 305

Your comments have gone awry. Military spending in the US is dwarfed by social welfare spending. Add up welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and so on and the total is about 2X what is spent on the Military. That is before Obamacare. You numbers are way off.

How much net work could a network work, if a network could net work?