Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:How racism? (Score 1) 578

If borders were torn down overnight, there would be massive migrant influxes to some countries and cities such that those countries and cities would have their social and physical infrastructure overwhelmed. E.g. A ridiculous amount of people from Central and South America would flood into New Mexico and Texas.

It would need to be graduated to prevent this.

Note: Nationalism is not a subset of bigotry. They are two quite different things. Nationalism doesn't necessarily even have to be xenophobic (i.e. you can love you country without hating or fearing anyone else).

Comment Re: Do doctors still use them? (Score 1) 179

They're used in conjunction with each other to accurately indicate blood pressure.

Just to be clear, the sphygomomanometer measures the pressure in the cuff. It does not measure blood pressure. It is an indirect indication of blood pressure that is non-inavasive and quite accurate and used extensively in an everyday clinical setting.

Comment Re:Do doctors still use them? (Score 1) 179

Accurate relative to what? I think palpation is best used as a quick clinical guide for simply indicating low, normal, or high BP in environments where you can't use a stethoscope. I only ever did palpation when it was inconvenient to pull over the Ambulance and the road noise was too loud to hear the Korotcoff sounds.

Comment Re:No chance of winning (Score 1) 176

"Then your country is a very rare exception."


It's not like your examples at all. It's a gradual process that happens through pressure on politicians from the population to achieve change. This happens over time along with gradual improvement in other areas. But if people don't ask for it or attempt it, it certainly won't change.

"We know that how?"

Firstly, I'm specifically not comparing it to third world style hell haven prisons. I've made that clear.

Secondly, using the US as an example, everyone on death row exhausts every appeal they have before they are finally executed because they want to live. Even in shitty US prisons they would prefer life over death. This is not something new. This is not surprising.

Comment Re:No chance of winning (Score 1) 176

No, my argument is not that society is correct by definition. You asked a question - should we imprison people and is it OK? I didn't answer your question and instead pointed you to making your own mind up on it, and provided some information to help you.

I didn't say it was a tiny minority. I don't know the statistics and I doubt you do either. You're welcome to look them up but I wouldn't bother for the sake of this discussion.

My country has good quality prisons and reasonable rehabilitation rates.

My logic is not broken. In my first post I said that "Just because a group of people consensually agree that someone should die doesn't make it something else." Later I wrote that even if we were to legislate for wholesale punitive murder that "...even then, it still doesn't make it right". You've combined the two, but it's close enough that I'll accept it.

In regards to prisons, I never wrote that they are right. They aren't necessarily good. But we know from historical contexts that prison is better than the alternative of wholesale punitive murder. I.e. I've argued they are better than the alternative.

I'll reiterate my most salient points:

That sort of system would be such a clusterfuck of people killing people.

The dark ages but with modern weaponry? No thanks.

Comment Re:No chance of winning (Score 1) 176

In reference to your first question, one is acceptable to almost all of society, the other is abhorred by almost all of society. So you can make your own mind up on that one.

Criminals are not abducted. The societal contract is laid out clearly in law. So after committing a crime one knows one may go to jail/prison as the penalty. They are not robbed of their life as a free person. They chose to do actions that entailed a clear penalty.

The whole point of jail is that it is meant to be good conditions to rehabilitate the prisoners. At one end of the scale you have some European prison systems that do this amazingly well, with very low recidivist offender rates. At the other end of the scale are some third world country prisons where the prisoners are kept in horrendous conditions. These horrendous prisons should not exist. If this is the state of your local prisons then you need to lobby to get it fixed.

You might argue that if we legalise murder as a punitive penalty then they are choosing their path if they commit the crime - and that would be valid if we legalised it. But you argued the point as a corollary to abducting and imprisoning as a crime - so you'll have to change your stance to argue that (which I'm fine with). And even then, it still doesn't make it right.

People get it wrong - all the time, they'll fuck up and kill innocents, or they'll simply murder an innocent and say the victim was doing something they shouldn't have been doing (and dead people don't argue back). And I expect the second example will happen a lot.

This is why we have due process instead. But even due process gets it wrong some of the time. So then once again you're killing innocent people.

There is no them and us - so "they" won't destroy society, we all will if we don't act accordingly. And making prison systems instead of torturing, maiming, or killing people who have wronged someone else is a mainstay of "society".

Consider, if we allow murder to become super easily justifiable by persons committing it, will you be at the top of the food chain? Or will you end up a victim? The numbers don't look good for your average Joe in this situation.

Do you want "The Purge" to be reality?

Comment Re:Another great Scalia line (Score 1) 1083

Nowhere does it say "as defined by a bigoted interpretation of a specific god".

It sure as fuck doesn't say "unalienable rights except as overruled by a ratified vote".

There exists in the modern world a legal classification of "married", which conveys upon you certain legal rights and privileges. What SCOTUS has done is say "the 14h ammendment says"

There is no religious exemption.

Doesn't "unalienable rights except as overruled by a ratified vote" cover exactly what exists in the states that have not allowed same sex marriage? (I'm not saying I agree with their laws - their laws encroach upon liberty, which I don't like).

Since the laws banning it applied exactly equally to everyone (i.e. a same sex couple, of any sexual orientation, was not allowed to marry), how did it not exclude everyone equally? Therefore treating everyone as equals under the eyes of the law.

Same sex heterosexual couples can get married (in states that allow same sex marriage). Suggesting otherwise would be both heterosexist, hypocritical and wrong. It has already happened - - Their reason for marriage is perfectly valid. People can get married for whatever reason they want. The people upset at their marriage are hypocrites. The whole point of allowing same sex marriage is that any two people who want to marry should be able to, for whatever reason they want - suddenly reversing that stance when two heterosexuals do it is poor form.

This law should now make it legal for friendship marriages for the purpose of becoming an American citizen legal as well.

Comment Re:Poor Scalia (Score 1) 1083

Lets congratulate heterosexuals as well.

Why? Because under the change, two same sex heterosexuals can get married as well.

Same sex marriage does not equal "gay marriage". Gay marriage is a subset of same sex marriage.

This is a right that will apply to everyone (just as banning same sex marriage was a rule that applied to everyone).

FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis