Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 0) 687

by drinkypoo (#47712321) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I'm a different AC, but I think you made his point. "You are unlikely to see another human being for days" in those hundreds (is it really thousands?) of square miles precisely "because practically nobody lives there or will ever go there."

Yes, I did. I also made the point that his point is irrelevant. We're talking about a minuscule proportion of the population. It's not that their wishes should be ignored, exactly; I believe that creation and protection of rights is a valid pursuit. But "It is virtually impossible for people to not run into each other," is still a completely valid statement. Virtually nobody lives in a situation where they won't see other people. Someone always turns up, if only for a sample of something. Maybe you. And frankly, there really is nowhere like you describe in the USA, either. There's a number of large private ranches of thousands of acres; those guys often have stories of trespassers. And a large portion of the country is owned by the Bureau of Land Management, which regularly portions big sections of it off for military and police training, and which patrols it regularly and investigates fires, target shooters in hunting season and hunters out of season, and the like. Then there's the big state parks, which are full of state park rangers on horses and in Jeep of various types, and IIRC Chevy trucks. They manage to cover quite a bit of ground.

So yes, it is virtually impossible to not run into people. You have to go to significant lengths, especially since people are actually looking for people in those supposedly empty places. Sure, you could get lost in the asscrack of some mountain somewhere, but even getting there is beyond the reach of many people. Only a tiny slice of the world population even lives away from someplace where you can avoid seeing people for more than a few minutes at a time.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 4, Interesting) 687

by drinkypoo (#47703329) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

AmiMojo counts sentiments like yours as proof of hate. If you disagree (or ask for meaningful evidence) that the problem is all around us and unbearable then you obviously support misogyny.

When you ask for meaningful evidence of misogyny on slashdot (or wider society) you only underscore your blindness to the problem. You shouldn't need anyone to point out examples, because an intelligent person would be able to find a discussion and skim it. When you learn to use the internets, you'll spend a lot less time whining.

Every woman I know well enough to tell me whether she has been raped has been raped. (I don't ask, obviously.) Either you live in a magical fairy world where women are treated better than they are in Northern California, or women don't trust you well enough for you to know how serious the problem is. And let me tell you, based on your statements, I am something less than shocked.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 0) 687

by drinkypoo (#47703289) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

There are literally thousands of square miles in the western U.S. where you
are unlikely to see another human being for days, if ever.

You didn't log in because you know this is an idiot argument, because practically nobody lives there or will ever go there. You're addressing essentially no percentage of the population.

We don't have ASBOs or much of the other nanny state bullshit

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No, instead we have a probation system. Know anything about it? Apparently not.

Keep your nanny state bullshit to yourself, buddy, we don't want OR NEED some twit
like you telling us what is acceptable. You see, WE in the U.S. are citizens, not
"subjects".

Keep telling yourself that. It has already been shown that this is an Oligarchy. You are only fooling yourself. Idiot, stop telling tales.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 4, Insightful) 687

by drinkypoo (#47703251) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change. It is not a political opinion, and it is not acceptable.

What? Fuck you sideways. I mean, I personally have no problem whatsoever with lesbigaytrangenderedetc people but I will stand up for anyone's right to do so. I get off the bus before it gets to the stop where you're permitted to treat people with prejudice when you're in a position of power. If I am a public figure who has a responsibility to people regardless of their sexual orientation, ideally you would have no idea what my personal position in fact is because I would do my job and it would not matter.

Further, there's plenty of gay people who don't like straight people, or don't like straight people of certain kinds. Are you going to go tell them that's not okay? Or is it still acceptable to hate on nominally white, nominally straight males?

Furthermore, note that "disliking homosexuals" is marginal, even among evangelical Christian organizations [...] "God loves the homosexual."

If you're going to start claiming that evangelical christians are like god, then you're really going to have to deal with an endless deluge of laughter and derision.

The key issue for LGBT rights activists is freedom to marry, which is "equal treatment under the law," not "equality of outcome."

No, no it is not. The key issue for LGBT rights activists is equality, which is "equal treatment under the law". It is a mark of how far our society has not come that we are actually arguing over one specific aspect of equality with such fervor. Next, we will get to move onto the next aspect of equality, still without actually recognizing that homosexuals are human beings who deserve equal protection under the law to every other human being. Instead, we continue to treat them like a subclass, and make them beg, plead, and finally fight for each individual right. Perhaps soon we will permit them to sit in the front of the bus.

Comment: Re:Automation, remote controls already exist (Score 1) 238

Automation is here. Being paranoid about one particular application of it won't help anyone.

It's scary because cars are already deadly and already everywhere. If you give them inadequate security (got) and an internet connection (some have, some are getting) and oh, also make them self-driving (on the way) then their very ubiquity makes the threat realistic. There's not that many people out there with a nice quadcopter capable of long-range flight who also have possession of explosives or even skill to credibly make same without blowing themselves up and you can bet that most of them are being monitored. But self-driving cars will soon be absolutely everywhere...

Comment: Re:You get nothing. Good day, sir! (Score 1) 162

DO NOT DO THIS. If it works and you overshoot, you'll induce another ice age,

It's taken us a long time and a lot of energy to fuck up the biosphere this badly. We won't reverse the trend that quickly even if we try. There are other concerns, though. For example, secondary effects from attempts to fix the problem...

Comment: Re:This is so silly (Score 1) 289

by drinkypoo (#47699011) Attached to: WikiLeaks' Assange Hopes To Exit London Embassy "Soon"

The UK won't extradite Assange unless the USA asks us to. Have you heard of any extradition requests form the USA yet? No, neither have I. Assange isn't afraidd of the Americans, he is afraid of the Swedish, specifically, he's not sure he will be found innocent of the rape charges.

That might be true, but if so, that reasoning applies whether or not the charges are true.

Comment: Re:How many years could he be charged with? (Score 1) 289

by drinkypoo (#47698983) Attached to: WikiLeaks' Assange Hopes To Exit London Embassy "Soon"

Funny how Sweden only became evil US lackeys after he was anklagad for rape.

What's funny about that? The request to appear was made, then withdrawn, then made again after he had already left the country, having already volunteered to appear and having been declined. Now having let him go, they want him again?

Comment: Re:Failure of the 20th-Century Environmental Movem (Score 1) 245

by drinkypoo (#47698919) Attached to: The Cost of Caring For Elderly Nuclear Plants Expected To Rise

For all of the laudable successes of the Environmental Movement in the late 20th Century (e.g. bans on DDT and chlorofluorocarbons, regulations to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions, habitat preservation), the anti-nuclear movement has to count as one of its great failures. These old plants are dangerous,

Yes, the anti-nuclear movement told you that would happen, but you ignored them. That was a failure, but it was largely yours.

Environmental opposition to nuclear power has made nuclear power vastly more dangerous than it needs to be,

Riiiiiight. Blaming the victim, real nice. It's not the environmentalists' fault that these old plants are dangerous. That's your fault. You put yourself in the pro-nuclear camp; you want to be there, you can take your share of the responsibility for making this situation possible. Instead, of course, of blaming the people who warned you. Fuck you for that.

You've been Berkeley'ed!

Working...