Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Blunting (Score 1) 132

It is also interesting to note that the majority of mass shooters in the last 25 years have been under the influence of - or withdrawing from - SSRI based anti-depressents.

The problem is that because of the difficulty of getting this information, and the poor quality of journalism in America, this information is usually just a footnote in a state report, or a small detail in the thousands of pages of documents entered into evidence at trial.

James Holmes (Aurora theater shooter), Adam Lanza (Newtown), the Navy Yard shooter, the second Fort Hood shooter, Anders Breivik (Norway shooter), Seung Hui Cho (Virginia Tech shooter), and Eric Harris (Columbine) were all on SSRIs when they went on their rampages.

But, yeah, it's a lot easier to just lazily blame guns.

Comment Taxation too. (Score 4, Insightful) 266

As anti-business and anti-success as the American tax code is, the tax codes of most European countries, in general, are worse. When Hollande put France under a 75% top marginal income tax rate, even Sarkozy started making plans to leave the country. Think about that for a second. The ex-president was going to leave to avoid the taxes.

You're not going to lure top talent to your country to try and make a billion dollar business when you promise to tax most of their income at 75%. With proper planning, in the US you'll be paying about 50% tops in California, and 40% in some other states.

Comment Re:Of course they did. (Score 2) 226

And yet at every opportunity, American voters support giving MORE power to the government. Industry will go to where the power is and seek to buy it, regardless of who holds it; that's just them acting in their own rational best interests. When you give the power to the government to regulate EVERYTHING, don't be surprised when industry buys the government and the individual ends up getting shafted.

If you keep power away from the government, and keep it in the hands of the people, then industry will seek to buy you via satisfying your interests in the market. It will have no other choice.

It's basic economics, but it's amazingly difficult for the low-information intelligentsia that makes up so much of the American voting block to grasp.

Comment Re:Lower Receiver? (Score 1) 391

A year and a half ago:

Metal barrel and all, with at least 2000 rounds through it according to a later press release:

So yes, like I said before, the machines already exist to 3d print functional metal gun barrels, but they're just not widely available yet due to cost. Serializing barrels as a form of controlling guns in the age of 3d printing is already an obsolete idea.

Comment Re:Lower Receiver? (Score 1) 391

All that would have done is kicked this whole conversation 3 or 4 years down the road until we have 3d printers that can do barrels.

I mean... cheap, widely available 3d printers that can do barrels.

Because... we already have 3d printers that can do barrels.

See how this whole gun control thing doesn't work?

Comment Now hold on a second... (Score 0) 187

That geographic specificity helps to underscore an important point about murders, says Robert Muggah, the research director and program coordinator for Citizen Security at the Rio de Janeiro-based Igarapé Institute, in the above-lined story: "In most cities, the vast majority of violence takes place on just a few street corners, at certain times of the day, and among specific people."

A dude from Rio de Jeneiro says this concerning worldwide homicide rates, and it makes it into a summary on Slashdot.

Someone on Slashdot says the same thing about America during a debate about guns, citing statistics from the FBI, and they get downvoted as a Troll and called a racist.

Comment Is this submission for real?! (Score 5, Insightful) 198

It's quite the logical leap to go from

cuts — almost by half — social sciences funding


House Bill Slashes Research Critical To Cybersecurity

only based on the vague claim that

Cybersecurity uses human behavior research because humans are often the weakest security link.

The submitter had to really stretch things to get enough almost-tech-related and republican-hating to have his story accepted.

Comment Re:The better solution (Score 2) 538

She has a long and vibrant history demonstrating her insatiable appetite for taking away ALL of your rights.

She wants the NSA to spy on your email and web browsing. She wants books banned because she doesn't like them. She doesn't want you to be allowed to own a gun, while at the same time she's one of the privileged few who can legally carry a concealed weapon anywhere in California.

Make no mistake: she is after all of your rights. And Californians LOVE her.

Comment Re:Loaded with Lobbying? (Score 1) 631

No one here is interested. They're too bust cheering their own defeat.

Remember when the internet banded together to defeat SOPA, because it gave the government too much control over the internet?

Today, three unelected bureaucrats voted to give the government what we know will turn into even more control over the internet than SOPA was going to give them. We've seen this movie before; we know how it ends, and it always turns out bad for the people. But today is different: it's being sold as bad for corporations, so it's being blindly cheered by the internet.

No one with any bit of sense, or memory of even the last handful of years of how the US government operates, could possibly believe that this will end well. And yet, here we are. Five hundred jubilant posts on slashdot.

Comment Tech isn't the problem... (Score 3, Insightful) 183

1. Too many laws make for too many criminals. Repeal a LOT of laws. The exponentially increasing number of malum prohimitum laws has been eroding personal liberty since the 1910s.

2. Make congress do the legislating. No more, "as the secretary shall determine." That just means we have no law and we're ruled by unaccountable bureaucrats, and each president gets to appoint his cronies to exact his political agenda on his enemies. If congress isn't smart enough to write the law, then it shouldn't become a law.

3. Loser pays, in both civil and criminal trials. Yeah, I can bring a lawsuit against the US government for violating my rights, but they get to use their unlimited wealth on an army of DOJ lawyers to stall in the courts until I'm bankrupt. The fact that rights are only restored when groups like the ACLU, EFF and NRA get involved against the government is proof enough of the problem.

Comment Re:Is this new? (Score 2) 133

The problem is that most people have watched too much CSI and think that a serial number on a gun is equivalent to a magical beacon that instantly homes in on the person who committed the crime. Just look at all the hysteria in the last few years over 3d printed guns and 80% firearms: it all revolves around the line of reasoning of, "if a criminal used this in a crime, we couldn't trace it back to them." The whole breathless panic never stops long enough to understand that criminals aren't going out and buying new guns from licensed dealers and having their names linked with serial numbers in the first place.

Comment Re:As someone brought up in a Catholic family... (Score -1, Troll) 341

I am old enough to mistrust any politician or religionist who talks about anything as a "moral imperative" because it usually implies mob justice and the crushing of civil liberties. Look at the history of the World. Look at ISIS right now whose highest priority is the moral imperative of submission to Islam. Tell me I'm wrong.

Francis is a communist. Lashing his religion to the religion of AGW, complete with social justice wealth redistribution as the solution, comes as no surprise.

I bet right now a lot of Catholics are longing for the days of Pope John Paul II, a man who spent his life fighting the Nazis and communists.

Comment And Paul Graham would be wrong... (Score 1) 552

Paul Graham's incorrect argument assumes that all countries will produce great programmers in equal proportions to their populations. He couldn't be more spectacularly wrong.

People from other countries where tribalism (Pakistan), extreme deference to authority (China), and extreme elder worship (India) are the rule, fall to the ingenuity, independence, creativity, and innovation of Americans, every, single, time. The majority of the cultural and genetic makeup of the continent for its first 500 years was that of people willing to risk their lives to come here, work hard, be independent, and make their own way. The effects of that are not easily undone. Paul Graham has fallen into the fallacy of thinking that all countries are the same, all cultures the same, all people the same, and thus their outputs should all be the same. What a dolt!

My company has an Indian subsidiary that we use to handle some of our simpler engineering issues at lower cost. And that's the point. They handle the simple issues, because even their best engineers can't be trusted with our complicated issues. We have to solve those ourselves.

So while the US may only have 5% of the world's population, it's not inconceivable that we could be producing 95% or better of the great programmers already.

"In the face of entropy and nothingness, you kind of have to pretend it's not there if you want to keep writing good code." -- Karl Lehenbauer