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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead? (Score 1) 196

by sumdumass (#48683115) Attached to: Drunk Drivers in California May Get Mandated Interlock Devices

Drunks made the decision to do something completely legal. It's only afterwards when they are impaired that they make the illegal decision. Or are you on some religious crusade against alcohol entirely. If so, you might want to try and make your case a little more clearly.

And please try thinking before you post this time. It isn't hard.

Comment: Re:Poor tax? (Score 1) 196

by sumdumass (#48683105) Attached to: Drunk Drivers in California May Get Mandated Interlock Devices

There is a big push to hurt low income people. Governments lower taxes and increase fees for services all the time. The so called cure for climate change seems to be taxing energy use to actually make it unaffordable in the hopes that some day someone might actually be fed up enough to create an economically viable and reliable alternative while oppressing the bulk of the people into using less. Even the criminal justice system is infiltrated. You have a constitutional right to a trial by jury but in practice, you will have to pay for it. I've seen the prices start at $120 and get as high as $1500 in my area.

Ronald Reagan probably said it best when he said " I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help" was the nine most terrifying words in the English language. It is not because the government cannot help, it is because in trying to do so, it tends to wreak havoc on people. Without government helping, you might not be any better off but at least you won't be paying for the boots on your neck holding you down every time it seems like you could get ahead.

Comment: Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead? (Score 1) 196

by sumdumass (#48683081) Attached to: Drunk Drivers in California May Get Mandated Interlock Devices

Drunks are impaired in their decision making and motor skills which is why it is illegal for them to drive while intoxicated. Saying there is a choice is a bit like saying people who drink and drive are completely sound and in control of themselves which sort of negates the reasoning for making it illegal in the first place.

Stop and think about that a bit.

Comment: Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead? (Score 1, Interesting) 196

by sumdumass (#48683069) Attached to: Drunk Drivers in California May Get Mandated Interlock Devices

You do not ruin a life by driving drunk. Drunk drivers only ruin someone else life when they have accidents which they are more prone to do. But simply driving over the legal limit often has no impact whatsoever at all on others or the drunken driver.

Comment: Re:Not seeing the issue here (Score 1) 205

by sumdumass (#48682339) Attached to: Judge: It's OK For Cops To Create Fake Instagram Accounts

It would seem that you need the name also.

The context I posed the question in was specifically of the defendant's pov. If you cannot follow that, you need a lot more help than I do. If your intent was to expand above it, you would look a lot less ridiculous if you a: attempted to point that out while going there, and b: refrained yourself from trying to insult someone in order to elevate your own self worth while appearing to lack basic reading comprehension skills.

Comment: Re:"Could", (Score 1) 400

by sumdumass (#48682315) Attached to: The Shale Boom Won't Stop Climate Change; It Could Make It Worse

Sigh... I guess you do not know the CO2 reduction done in Europe the last 20 years and the increase of CO2 production in China over the last 20 years or you would have provided it. It is an indisputable fact that Europe, or the EU more specifically has drastically increased their imports since attempting to cope with Co2 reductions.

The amount of Co2 reduction verses increases is meaningless because it does not and never has to be a one for one trade. China has actually increaes their Co2 production over the same period of time well above any reductions in Europe. But the real magic sticking you in the eye is that I did not limit it to china as you pretend to want to.

The rest of your post(s) clearly shows you how sciense and research works ...

Why don't you take a deep breath, wait a few minutes, try to parse that into a constructive thought, maybe ask you mom to help or something and then repost it as a complete thought that everyone else can understand.

How exactly should a government do its own research? Paying funds to a private company? Or having its own research institutions competing with private companies?

How about all of the above? I mean if the problem is actually serious and needs attention, why not just address it. Crime is one of those all of the above situations and it is workign pretty damn well. We have government funded police, security guards (private companies), government paying security guards, and government institutions competing with private companies all in order to keep crime low. And yes, it is working fantastically as crime rates (more specifically violent crimes) are dropping huge amounts over the last 50 years. One thing they did not do though, was impose an enormous taxes and burdensome regulations on victims of crime in the hopes they could somehow figure out how to lower the crime rates on their own in some distant future.

Taxing what you don't want, like pollution, and leaving the rest to 'the market' workes quite fine if you leave the market otherwise alone.

Only if your goal is control and subjugation of the populace why expanding your own power. Otherwise it is destructive and overly burdensome and intentionally cruel to lower income people. It does little to nothing to advance any legitimate goals other that creating hardships for the population.

Why don't you open your eyes and look around a bit. Stop mindlessly repeating the shit you have been brainwashed with and actually apply some critical thinking skills if you have them. This nonsense you are spouting is really worthless drivel to anyone not advancing their own goals and will be resisted by the majority of the population all the way. If climate change really is a problem, then using the power that already exists within governments to explore the cures and fixes while implementing them is the proper solution. Not sitting on your thumbs and buying carbon credits from Al Gore or burdening the populous and hoping they come up with the cure. It's almost as if your understanding of economics is limited to a second grade level. This makes about as much sense as divesting from fossil fuels- which only makes the stock cheaper so others will purchase it and life goes on.

Comment: Re:Supply / Demand curve (Score 1) 188

by roman_mir (#48682301) Attached to: Uber Pushing For Patent On Surge Pricing

You are talking about super regulated markets, markets where governments are heavily involved and declaring that the way they are regulated and corrupted by the governments is something that would prevent a bakery from changing prices on the fly should their market conditions change, for example a giant influx of consumers wouldn't change the market conditions for bakery enough to change prices. I showed that as market conditions change the producers quickly modify their behaviour. I don't know what you are even trying to say, however comparing stable and predictable market conditions to changing market conditions and declaring that changing market conditions do not cause producers to changing prices is too silly.

Comment: Re:Put this same government in charge of healthcar (Score 1) 241

It's a great point: people who don't have an emotional investment in the Department of X can easily see that the people who make up the Department only care only for improving their own power and financial position, and are making X even worse both by getting in the way and also by consuming valuable resources that could be used to actually provide X instead.

The difficult part is realizing this is true for all X, even the ones which are your personal favorites.

Comment: Re: I doubt it. (Score 1) 79

hey, I had a GE made in Mexico about a decade ago - complete junk. I just gave away a Bosch too - also junk. Before the GE was Whirlpool junk. Replaced the Bosch with a Maytag, a model with a grinder, and it's the first dishwasher I've bought that I haven't hated in two decades. Not sure where it's made.

Comment: Re:Nice troll (Score 1) 509

by roman_mir (#48678719) Attached to: Paul Graham: Let the Other 95% of Great Programmers In

You are either a full or a liar, Henry Ford's model was not to pay workers so that they would 'buy' anything, his model was to pay more to his employees to reduce turn over of highly specialised professionals, who were becoming very efficient but leaving the company once they achieved proficiency to go work somewhere with less stress. So he doubled people's salary and reduced turnover, keeping the trained employees and doubling his productive output in a very short time after that.

He was NOT paying his people to buy anything, he was paying his people so that they would have hard time quitting the jobs.

The reality is that globalisation requires a real free market environment and that is something people really hate - competing and allowing the best competitors to become much wealthier while raising the overall standard of living in the economy.

You are growing statism, fascism and nazism and you are destroying individual freedoms with every new regulation, law, tax, barrier to entry, license, newly printed paper dollar and you think you can create a prosperous economy based on any of that, well you cannot and the time is proving that you cannot. No amount of natzism (national socialism) will help you because you are asking the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter.

The real question is what is virtue and not how to divide a shrinking pie. The virtue is in non-initiation of force and in allowing true free market economy based on capitalist principles to destroy the old guard, the fascism, the nazism, the socialism, those are self-destructing, corrupt principles that arise from position of desire to dictate to others. What is virtue is the only real question. Virtue is non-initiation of force and it leads to voluntary exchange and freedom, which is the only way to have a cooperative environment, where each works for himself, for his own profits, but the result is a robust wealthy economy.

Comment: Re:Supply / Demand curve (Score 1) 188

by roman_mir (#48678669) Attached to: Uber Pushing For Patent On Surge Pricing

Your example is false because it does not address real situations that a bakery can face that are caused by changing market conditions, you are looking at stable market environment and deduce that because bakeries in stable market environments can operate without changing prices that it means that those very bakeries would not change prices quickly if market environments changed quickly.

"Is it really you, Fuzz, or is it Memorex, or is it radiation sickness?" -- Sonic Disruptors comics