Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Freedom! (Score 1) 110 110

You should have paid closer attention. Your "reward" will be 70 very ugly virgins riddled with various diseases who will constantly be fighting with each other, and who will always be jealous of each other. Plus they will have only one hobby - nagging at you. Have fun with your paradise, my friend.

Your sarcasm only makes sense if you think GP was serious. I hope that is not the case.

Comment: Re:Probably a stupid question but... (Score 1) 42 42

Your link only reaffirms what GP already recognized: astronomers combine all elements except hydrogen and helium into one large group calls "metals" and then measure an object's "metallicity". The question that was asked is why did astronomers choose to use the specific word "metal"? The word already had a very specific meaning in science and in common usage. So were the astronomers just being lazy or was there more meaning to the decision?

Comment: Re:Setting aside that old Constitution (Score 1) 446 446

I'm not sure you and I are reading the same constitution in regards to corporations. Last I checked, the closest the constitution says about the subject is giving congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce. How this affects the power to issue interstate/intrastate corporate charters is in no way "clear" as you claim.

Comment: Liberal ilk has nothing to do with it. (Score 1) 544 544

If a person has the option to reduce their tax burden by instead giving that money to some private party, then the argument of whether it is private money or state money is simply a matter of semantics. No one in this thread has made the claim that private parties shouldn't be allowed to give their money to these organizations, but when that donation triggers a tax benefit, then that donation clearly effects the state's bottom line. I would think that this is glaringly obvious, regardless of whichever "ilk" one may belong to. Or are you deliberately trying to obfuscate the discussion?

Comment: Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... (Score 1) 822 822

Even "no penalty" may be too harsh a penalty if you believe he shouldn't receive punishment. If his sentence is "no penalty" then that must mean he's been convicted of the crimes that he is charged with, which happen to all be felonies. Then he'd be a convicted felon, not allowed to vote, find a decent job, etc.

What is now proved was once only imagin'd. -- William Blake