Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:FAA doing it right (Score 1) 57

Your argument is that we should wait for a tragedy to make rules to prevent a tragedy.

No, my argument is that telling a 13 year old girl that she has to have her name in a public-facing federal database in order to fly a 9-ounce pink plastic RC copter from a mall kiosk, or face a $20,000 fine will do exactly NOTHING to prevent a bad guy from doing all of the horrible murderous things that we're seeing done with RC toys. Oh, right - there are literally millions of them in the hands of people, with untold millions of flight hours on them, and we're not actually seeing any of that. But you're pretty sure that someone looking to do harm will step up and register their name with the feds, and then write their identifying information on the RC airplane they're going to use to deliberately hurt people? Are you really thinking this through?

Comment Re:What? (Score 1) 261

I see..

So was changing the focus from Hillary maliciously attacking victims of Bill's sexcapades to Bill and everyone else having affairs supposed to distract from the issue of Hillary or do you just like talking about people having sex? I mean Bill cheating on Hillary doesn't really matter outside of her not being able to satisfy Bill or that he tried to escape often. And that could explain her being bitter but i don't think it excuses her.

Oh, and speaking of sex and they all do it. Did you know that the Watergate break in was claimed to be about gathering evidence on a prostitution ring run by the DNC in attempts to get donations by 2 of the 5 convicted participants? This was before the funding from Cuba story and G Gordon Liddy used to tell of sex parties at DNC fundraisers on his radio show which segmented into his claims about the prostitution ring.

Comment Re:The unmarried speak... (Score 1) 398

You aren't married are you? Anyone who is married is laughing at your naivety right now. (Including me)

No, I"m not...I do NOT want kids. Therefore, there is no reason to get married, and risk losing half of what I own whenever I decide I want to move on to a different woman.

I have had a number of very long term relationships (each of numerous years)....and sure, I know that requires some compromise, but seriously, a fucking car horn he has to ask about? Does he also ask if he can have a pudding cup or a beer before dinner??

There's a difference between compromise in a relationship, and being a spineless yes "man" in a relationship where you feel you have to ask or get permission for anything you do.

Yes, I say, grow a pair....women don't respect you if you don't assert yourself, show confidence, and show that you know (or at least project that you know) what you want in life.

If fact, being too much of a pussy, can put your at risk of losing your dear woman.

Just because you put a ring on her finger, doesn't mean you should let her put one through your nose and guide your ass around the rest of your life.

If it gets too bad...well, there are a ton of other women out there, a dime a dozen.....

But hey if you want to be monogamous your life with one women, fine....but you still don't have to be a pussy and cow-tow to the woman. If you have to get WAF (Wife Approval Factor) for simply changing the horn in your very own car you have....you've got some problems my friend.

Geez, do you ask permission to change the radio station too?

Comment Re:So, now is it finally legal to... (Score 1) 398

Single again are you? I wonder why...

No...I have plenty of girlfriends and those I can and do date as I please.

Monogamy is fine for some, but I figure, why tie yourself down to just one?

Why get married unless you really want to have kids?

Women are a dime a dozen out there...variety is the spice of life.

Comment Re:So, now is it finally legal to... (Score 1) 398

There's a whole world out there with other people called women. And when you meet one that likes you (for some reason), things get complicated. Overall, though, they are soft, smell nice, posses pleasant curves and may have different opinions than you that you will have to work through or learn to live with. if you wish to maintain their company.

No reason really to get married, unless you plan on having kids.

I figure, why tie yourself down to one...with the added risk of losing half your shit you own if you ever decide to "upgrade" to a newer model?

But even so...seriously, just because you are in a relationship, doesn't mean you have to lose your spine, and give in with everything to the women. Hell, in most cases, if you do this as a man, you WILL start to lose her respect. One thing they attracted to is your being confident, in command, and in control.

Sure, you have to compromise if you're gonna marry them, but NOT on everything.

If you are too much a pushover, they may end up leaving you for someone else a bit more 'difficult', that doesn't let themselves get run roughshod over....

Not everything requires WAF (Wife Approval Factor).

It is the guys own car, and he seriously has to ask his wife about changing the fucking horn on it?!?! Does she also pick his underwear out for him too?

Comment Re:Uh... let me think about it (Score 3, Funny) 398

Yes, the woman who drove for two days to a destination 2 hours away has nothing to do with the GPS. That has everything to do with stupid.

And yet, these SAME women will bitch and moan at us for not asking directions.

Geez, first we gave them the vote, and then drivers licenses, and the world has gone downhill ever since then....

;)

Comment Re:Only Outlaws will Have Encryption (Score 1) 142

Generally, I don't agree with arguments of the form "If we ban X, only the bad guys will have X". (For example, if X is "guns", then total general unavailability of them, would eventually drive manufacturers out of business - and sooner or later all guns (and ammunition) would rust into non-existence and the bad guys wouldn't have them.)

As the other reply said, guns are easy to manufacture. That genie is out of the bottle.

There is a place in northern Pakistan, in the tribal areas, where they quite literally make *modern* weapons by hand, with *primitive tools*. And I don't mean just AK-47s, I mean *anti-aircraft guns*. And they work just fine. Yes, they would be expensive to hand make, but the community that uses them isn't exactly looking to own 50 of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Let's not confuse the ability to stop making guns cheaply in industrial quantities with the ability to end their existence. Organized crime can very easily obtain armorers just like they do chemists and any other specialist. In that case, the only ones with the weapons would be the criminals and probably the cops.

Comment Re:Why not overseas .... (Score 1) 142

As a manager, I only resent one type of loss of "control" over my team members: the loss of control that doesn't do anything but make our lives more difficult to prop up a situation that has nothing to do with the work we are trying to get done.

There is a reason people like Henry Ford actually did research on the proper length of a work day and provided good pay, it improved productivity.

Left to their own devices, managers want productivity, and a good manager knows that slavery had shitty efficiency. Particularly in my field, I spend forever trying to find the right person to hire, I certainly don't want them to bail on me because I made them work 12 hour shifts for 8 weeks straight. I also don't want them tired or dispirited.

Managers can absolutely do long term thinking. The problem is that it is not always rewarded. If you want to do anything, find a way to reward long term thinking, and not short term profit.

For my part, I think tariffs are a terrible idea. They may help maintain an artificially higher standard of living... for awhile... but you stagnate because you lose competition and both your population and industry eventually stagnates in terms of productivity and capability. I think a tariff is a short term, knee-jerk reaction to a problem. It is same sort of shitty short term political solution to match the shitty short term business decisions made by executives who are being pressured by shareholders for "Profit Now". Except in this case it is, "save our jobs now," even if those jobs really should go.

We should not be wanting to go back to the days of the 1950s where we made cars and t-shirts here. Working on assembly lines or in mills *sucked*. It was a steady job, which certainly was a nice thing for people who remembered the Great Depression, but as a long term strategy, China is welcome to have them.

Our real problem isn't that China makes our t-shirts. Our problem is that we aren't making enough advanced widgets of our own here and that those people in the unemployment lines cannot be put to work in fields that need more people, as opposed to pining for jobs that we shouldn't even aspire to anymore.

If we're just going to run an economy to keep our populations fed, we should automate everything and get people on a basic income or make a real effort at re-training what we can't automate. We shouldn't be hamstringing our economy with things like tariffs to maintain a 1950s model of America.

More to the point, we shouldn't be hogging jobs that help other countries become more successful. Do you want to end war? Then you make the other side so afraid of losing its trade with you that it wouldn't even consider it. Tariffs make bad neighbors. And bad neighbors are liable to get in fights. We need to do some sharing.

Comment Re:So, now is it finally legal to... (Score 5, Funny) 398

I keep telling my wife that this is why I want to install a really loud air horn in my car, think semi truck loud, but she says no.

I'm sorry...why the fuck are you asking your wife about what you want to do with YOUR car...?

Even with that...why would you listen..it is your car, enjoy man.

Grow a pair and do what you want on your own car....

Comment Re:Michelson-Morley were wrong. Ether exists (Score 2) 350

There's no difference between "change in speed of light", "change in distance", and "change in travel time for light". They're all the same thing. Don't both instruments detect very small changes in round-trip travel time for light, comparing one direction to the other?

Sure then 1880s apparatus wasn't going to detect gravity waves, but that's just a matter of sensitivity of the instrument. We still call an electron microscope a microscope.

Slashdot Top Deals

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Working...