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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Obligatory (Score 1) 662

ADC, Eddie Murphy, Bob Sagat, Gallagher (violence against fruits and veggies)...

I also don't like the implication that the Freedom of Speech can be infringed (including to the point of career ending) by someone's hurt feelings, sensitive ears, or other inconsequential, non-physical "harm".

I agree: words are only words. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Apparently, that little mantra went out the window when NCLB/CC entered the schoolhouse...

If you don't like the comedian, fine... don't buy a ticket. But don't try to stop others who may possibly enjoy something other than what you do, who may have other interests or tastes. Because, in their world, they are right and you are wrong. It's called the subjective point-of-view, and absolutely every person on the earth has a different one from everyone else. That's the true diversity in the homo sapiens species: not skin color, or height or weight, or citizenship.

Comment Re:OT Re:legalism is a crap philosophy. (Score 1) 564

Cars kill. We should ban all cars. Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!

If we can't get that, then we should ban all cars with horsepower above 10, or with spoilers, or electric windows, because these enhancements make the vehicle into an assault vehicle, and no one really needs these options anyway. Also, it shouldn't hold more than 5 gallons of gas, and it should only be 80 octane gas, all other high-powered gas should only be sold to government agencies or, of course, private security firms.

The proof that the only use of cars is contained in the fact that 32,719 people were killed by cars in 2013. Look at the road rage, look at the GTA, look at the drunk drivers.

Think of the children!!!

Comment Re:WTH (Score 1) 90

Nice idea...

But to fit into the FCC's "Safe Harbor" category, where you, as an ISP, aren't held liable and legally responsible for the illegal content flowing through your network (think child porn and DMCA), you'll have to maintain records for each and every IP address: who is using it, when they are using it, and ensure you can send the lawyers to the exact location that was using that IP address at the date/time that they specify.

Did you consider this one legal facet of your idea (out of probably 100?) There's way, way more to being an ISP than just offering a path to the internet...

Comment Re: The enemy of my enemy (Score 1) 191

OK, so if the US gets involved late in the game, it's "your usual stunt of staying out until as much profit as possible had been made", not "attempting to defuse the situation using diplomacy via the UN".

If the US would have done something sooner, you would have been considered it a warmonger, right?

What-the-fuck-ever.

I do agree with your statement that the US meddles in lots of places that it shouldn't (the Middle East, Central America, SE Asia, etc.) And, that the US has trained peoples that have become it's enemy in the future (bin Laden, for example, and usually because of an action or inaction on the part of the US: we are not good at this type of thing). I think it's a bunch of BS saying that the US is "protecting it's interests" - not that the interests don't exist, but the US has the RIGHT to do this, unless specifically asked by the world (ie: UN). If a US corporation is in trouble in a foreign country, IMO that's just tough luck, it was a gamble that was lost. So sad, too bad. Part of the game of business. It's not a US interest at that point, unless an extrapolation is made, which does not justify it.

HOWEVER, I also believe that the US has helped many, many people in many situations (or, at least, tried to). The US stayed out of WWII until it was dragged, kicking and screaming, into it via Pearl Harbor, even after much of Europe begged the US for action and help previously. Even though it's "interests" would have been better served by entering earlier (helping it's allies when asked). There is no doubt that the US ultimately tilted the balance in the Allied's favor, and an Axis win would have been devastating to US "interests". Was that "staying out until as much profit as possible had been made"?

So, what is the proper action? Get in early and help allies, or stay out until forced? Because by your statements, there is no correct choice, and no matter what the US does, it's wrong. Go ahead, give me the "right" answer here, and let me know where you're from so that your country's actions can also be analyzed...

Comment Re:The enemy of my enemy and the friend of my frie (Score 1) 191

Well said, don't understand why you used AC...

The other (unstated but obvious) restriction on free speech is the situation where the utterance could or will directly endanger lives. The common example used is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. This is an obvious misuse and malicious use of speech, and rightly is against the law.

I know it's obvious, and has been stated in other conversations, but thought it should be included in this conversation.

Comment Re:Penny (Score 1) 702

You're never going to see a situation where someone bursts into a crowded movie theater with a knife and stabs to death dozens of people

But, bombs are very effective at this... So, yeah, let's ban the guns, so that the bombing may begin.

While you're at it, let's get rid of some of those other pesky bills of rights... They just get in the way of the ability of the Government (aka Super Mommy) to protect and nurture the unwashed public. Who needs the right to object to the Gov't's benign rules and regs; who needs to be able to have a peaceful and private gathering; why would you not allow the military to use your home as a barracks? You don't have anything to hide anyway, right? So, privacy just gets in the way of the Gov't's job of ensuring people's safety. Courts know best, police are our friends and exist to protect us, and the notion of personal and state rights are just, so, old-fashioned... These are all silly, outdated ideas, and are completely out of place in today's society, so what the hell. Dump 'em all and let's get our civility on! Woo fucking hoo!

Comment Re:"The Subdivision of the Electric Light" (Score 2) 338

...as well as developing a complete and commercially viable system for safely electrifying your home our shop.

No, that's Nicolai Tesla. It is very well known that Edison wanted to use DC power. He was first a capitalist and second an inventor, and one of his businesses was to build neighborhood DC power plants. Tesla was the person who pushed for AC power, because AC is able to be transformed to higher voltages (and therefore lower amperages) in order to transport it over longer distances and having larger, more regional and therefore more efficient power plants rather than smaller, neighborhood power plants (and as a side effect, the ability to have redundancy built into the system: distant power plants can be used in the case of a failure of a closer plant). Edison is purported to have done some very nasty things to try to sway public opinion away from AC power, such as publicly electrocuting animals (cats, or dogs, I don't remember and am too lazy to look it up) and did his best to destroy Tesla, as he saw Tesla's ideas as a threat to his money-making opportunities, even though Tesla was in awe of Edison and originally came to America to specifically work as Edison's prodigy.

We know who's ideas eventually won out, of course...

Comment Re:Further proof (Score 1) 78

You want to talk about straw man? And you offer sugar, food, and caffeine? I specifically used slavery BECAUSE it was so far and away more heinous, and it proved my point perfectly!

BTW: "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent." Your argument was that since alcohol has been around since ancient times, we wouldn't be able to legislate it out of existence. I countered, using the fact (and your own fucking words, mind you) that slavery has also been around since ancient times, but we were indeed able to legislate it out. The facts that I did not include (incorrectly thinking that you were of normal intelligence and would naturally infer them), such as the fact that slavery had a huge impact on big business, and it's demise would be detrimental to that profit, would make it even less likely to do away with, but we were STILL able to. This was not a straw-man, since I directly countered the arguments that you presented, again, using your exact words.

But OK, to use YOUR examples, how many people do you know who have gotten hopped up on sugar, Starbucks, and Big Macs, and then killed people because they were so impaired that they couldn't drive?

Jesus Christ, you are a complete and utter moron...

Alcohol is a drug, pure and simple. My point is that it's a drug that is ACCEPTED, even though it's physiological and societal impact is much more violent and detrimental than other (illegal) drugs. Period.

Comment Re: John Oliver (Score 1) 954

I think most "pro-gun" people see training requirements as an infringement of their rights...maybe an alternative is to instead offer MASSIVE tax breaks (like the Earned Income Tax Credit) for those who complete training. So you could still legally own weapons with no training, but you have very little incentive to do so. With the exception of my parents, every firearms owner I know is ex-military or law enforcement, so we are already at least somewhat proficient in basic weapons handling and marksmanship.

I don't think you are right about this... Most gun owners have already taken gun safety and handling training (think: hunter safety), which is very widely offered (if not universally offered) in every state in the US. By the NRA, BTW: the largest firearm safety advocate there is. So I don't think any incentive is needed or required to get people to take safety training. In fact, I think most "pro gun" people (myself included) are very open and accepting to more safety training; I view it as an ongoing process. You can never, ever learn enough; that's true in every facet of your life. More safety training, more target practice (which makes the shooter a safer shooter, in both their marksmanship and firearm handling techniques), etc.

And, just because a person is ex-military or LEO, doesn't necessarily mean they are more proficient with weapons than someone who is not. I know ex-military that were from the medical corps and the chaplain corps that would not know very much about firearm care or handling. So, you can't group people like that and expect each and every one of them to have the same proficiency level. Though, it does indicate that they have probably had SOME training. Almost everyone that I know (male and female) has taken hunter safety in their lifetime; though, I do live in a rural state, and just about everyone here hunts. Even my daughter-in-law has her concealed-carry permit. So you can't judge a book by it's cover.

Being raised around firearms also lends itself to safety. I don't know any kids that don't have a very healthy respect for firearms, because their parents have taught them properly. They take their kids out and TEACH them safety and respect for them, and how to handle and behave when working with them. Not that they don't lock their firearms up at home; everyone also has a gun case or safe that the kids don't have access to (because, let's face it: kids are kids, and they will do stupid things if you let them. I know this from personal experience! :) ) We don't have a gun problem in this county, we have a "respect" problem: respect for parents, respect for others, and respect for selves. That can't be legislated into being, that can't be taught in school. It has to come from home, and there are too many messed up homes and messed up kids in this country. It's a very sad thing to see.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is difficult to soar with the eagles when you work with turkeys.

Working...