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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:Massive and stupid (Score 1) 212

people don't in general do that

Oh, but they do. People are violent. You're old enough to remember that we had to be constantly reminded in mass media and by the stewardesses to not try to wrestle with hijackers; to do things the "civilized" way. People followed the rules until it was clear the rules didn't apply. Then they acted. And they've acted many times since. Sure, it wouldn't hurt to have a few more air marshals, but what good are four air marshals compared to a plane full of passengers with knives? Pen knives used to be carried by everyone everywhere. Now they're scary terrorist weapons.

Comment Re:Massive and stupid (Score 1) 212

"Are you guys ready? Let's roll." -Todd Beamer
The passengers on Flight 93 are the heroes you deride. Given your UID, you're not a youngster, so you lived through 9/11 and you should remember the hijacking a that occasionally took place before; the rule was always "let the hijackers have their way and everyone gets out alive". Once the passengers of Flight 93 figured out what their fate was, they went full Steven Segal, forcing the hijackers to abort mission and crash the plane prematurely.

Comment Re:No, obviously (Score 1) 259

In the same vein, why does an armed robbery in many states carry an "enhanced" sentence, or even become a different crime, because a gun was used? Would a crossbow or a big knife have been any different? They're all deadly weapons.

Armed robbery includes any deadly weapon brandished as threat of force during the robbery, not just firearms. Branding a weapon while robbing lends insight to the mindset of the criminal; that he or she is willing to cause bodily harm or kill in their commission of a crime. Killing (even accidentally) in the commission of a felony is usually considered murder, so planning to kill in commission of a felony is like planning to murder.
As usual: I am not a lawyer, mileage may vary, void in the Commonwealth of Oklahansas.

Comment Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing (Score 4, Interesting) 194

Hitchcock knew that implied violence is more effective long term than overt gore. You can't become desensitized to your own imagination. GRRM's books are stories first, not gore & boob fests. He made you imagine the boobs and gore while showing you the story. Why do the GoT TV writers show you all the boobs and gore while making you imagine the story? I'll tell you why. It's because ...


... it's titillating.

Comment Re:Make rules and know when to break them (Score 1) 95

Some of the same writers on the other hand spent a lot of time making sure the stars go by in the right direction on the ship in Futurama, as they were trying to make the layout of the ship there a little more sensible, most of the time.

Despite the ship be nonsensical. FYI, it's not just the stars that move. The ship moves the entire universe!

Comment Re:Fuck precious metals- propellant all the way ba (Score 1) 61

...but propellant mining is the one that all the other things rely on- it's the equivalent of oil in space.

Oh, NO!


Why, oh *why* did you have to say *that*!?

Good grief man, did you *have* to use the "O"-word!?

You *know* what's coming now, right?


"Ehrrmahgerhdd!! Ehrmahgehrdd!!

Now Big Space Oil is gunna cause Orbital-Warming CO2 Terrorists In Spaaaace!!"

Way to go, man. Way to go.


Strat :P

Comment Re:buh, bye (Score 0) 494

You are not seriously comparing Trump to Obama, are you?

Heavens, no!

Trump actually has experience successfully running something, whereas all Obama had previous to his entry into politics was "community organizing" and the 'Choom Gang". Although to be fair Obama was very successful at whitewashing his past regarding his schooling etc, so there's that.


Comment Re:Humans are not monogamous (Score 1) 301

Marriage exists precisely because humans are not naturally monogamous. If humans naturally mated for life, what advantage would there be in codifying the pair bonding in law, both as a commitment between two people and a commitment from the community (to police their union either socially or legally)? Naturally bonded humans would view marriage licenses and adultery laws like we would view laws telling people that they must eat food if they want to live.
But recognizing that humans are not naturally monogamous doesn't excuse cheating behavior; it only explains it.

When a fellow says, "It ain't the money but the principle of the thing," it's the money. -- Kim Hubbard