Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Just Askin' (Score 1) 191

by circletimessquare (#49202143) Attached to: Come and Take It, Texas Gun Enthusiasts (Video)

the current intepretation is a product of late 20th century judicial activism in an era of increasing crime and bernie goetz/ dirty harry style anger. it has to do with handguns, individual action, and urban environments

but the second amendment is about long guns, community action, and rural hinterland

as crime declined and continues to decline (due to the waning of the crack epidemic and better policing like COMPSTAT, not handgun ownership) we are at a crossroads where a loud minority insists hothead douchebags walking around half cocked with guns in civil society is good. it's fucking stupid, it's a recipe for unnecessary death, and doesn't impact crime at all

our social and economic peers control hand guns far better, and are not cesspools of rape, murder, and robbery. in fact, they are a mostly equivalent on crime measures as us, but a lot lower than us on measure of murder. because we're the morons with all the extra pointless easy guns

so we shall return to the original intent of the founding fathers: long guns, community action, and rural hinterland (no one wants to take away your shot gun, farmer/ hunter, and you deserve it), and do away with this late 20th century judicial activism about handguns, individual action, and urban environments

you get trained, tested, THEN you get a gun. and we will cut down on the USA's absolutely insane sky high homicide rate compared to our social and economic peers

do you see a problem here that needs correcting? the majority of americans do:

Comment: Re:Just Askin' (Score 0) 192

by circletimessquare (#49200793) Attached to: Come and Take It, Texas Gun Enthusiasts (Video)

the second amendment refers to a *well-regulated* militia

so if you want to adhere to your actual constitutional rights, then you need training (the 1700s meaning of well-regulated is well-trained) before you get a gun, rather than the current US status quo of handing out guns to any mouth breathing moron who wants one. and with easy guns for any untrained douchebag, we have our pathetic american status quo of high homicide rates

the american legal status quo on guns is not actually in line with the second amendment. we require people to take drivers ed and pass a course before they can drive a car. to be more in line with the second amendment, we need to require people to get gun and safety training, and then pass a test, before getting a gun. thus the *well-regulated* militia refered to in the second amendment

the current understanding of gun rights in the USA is a late 1900s dirty harry style invention of anyone should have a gun, no questions asked. that's not actually the second amendment. why or how do people think they can ignore the *well-regulated* part of the second amendment?

they can't

and we will fix this erroneous late 20th century constitutional activism against the founder's clearly stated intent

Comment: Re: Ok then... (Score 2) 230

by circletimessquare (#49195769) Attached to: How Activists Tried To Destroy GPS With Axes

thank you, exactly

stoner philosophy is what we are dealing with here, but because they commit violence, we have to take their "deep thoughts" seriously?

if someone has actual insightful thoughts, they are a strong mind, and they don't resort to violence. if they resort to violence, that's proof we are dealing with a weak mind and mediocre thoughts

Comment: Re:Ok then... (Score 1, Troll) 230

by circletimessquare (#49195153) Attached to: How Activists Tried To Destroy GPS With Axes

if you spout off about sarah connor you're not necessarily highly sensitive and attuned to some great insight into all of our reality that most people don't see. you're just dimwitted and grasping things on the edge of your own personal fuzzy grasp on reality. amazing insights are not partly digested critiques of james cameron movies

it's like taking LSD, and finding yourself transcribing the thoughts of God. when you finally sober up, you find the thoughts of God are: "brain BEZZLED fruit fliesfru ~~ it fli e."

what LSD does is it scrambles and diminishes your consciousness, so mundane things become awesome consciousness spanning phenomena. only because you've temporarily degraded your consciousness to a tiny dim bulb

so: are you really adding to humanity with some amazing breakthrough perception by dropping LSD?

or are you just degrading your perception and intelligence temporarily and only perceiving what seems like a great insight to a temporarily dimmed mind?

now, put aside the LSD, and what if we're dealing with someone's who is honestly just a deluded nut case? that their perceptual powers are weak, and always were weak?

an incredibly sparse exotic few of us are actual great philosophers. and those that are, are not taking axes to satellites. going to violence and force is proof of a weak and dim mind, not a strong and intelligent one

and a distressing large number of us have mediocre thoughts we only think are great philosophies. and then a fringe few have straight up bizarre thoughts, and are happy to commit violent and forceful acts in the name of those ditzy ideas. being a deranged douchebag who thinks of themselves as a great thinker doesn't mean you actually are or that anyone should take you seriously

and even if you are intelligent, say a great programmer or chess player, this does not mean you are necessarily socially intelligent or even socially well-adjusted. so you can have ideas which are laughable to people of average intelligence, but also average social intelligence, more intelligent than your social intelligence. for example, this wackjob:

they're not more sensitive to anything, they're not great thinkers, they're not aware of some amazing powerful insight the rest of us are missing

they're just *crazy*

Comment: Re:Yes. What do you lose? But talk to lawyer first (Score 4, Insightful) 687

by hey! (#49193289) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Should I Let My Kids Become American Citizens?

Personally, I don't see that any of these things as compelling practical advantages, given that the kids already have dual Swedish and Belgian (and therefore EU) citizenship. If they were Moldovan and South Sudanese, that'd be a different story. Or if they were citizens of a country from which getting a visa to enter the US might be difficult in the future.

But most importantly I think this is one of those decisions that you just don't make primarily on a cost-benefit basis. It's not like deciding to join Costco or subscribe to Hulu. Citizenship entails responsibilities. If you want your kids to shoulder those responsibilities and feel allegiance to the US then it makes sense to get them that citizenship come hell or high water. But given that they already have two perfectly good citizenships from two advanced western democracies with generally positive international relations worldwide, I don't see much practical advantage in adding a third.

Still, I wouldn't presume to give advice, other than this. The poster needs to examine, very carefully, that feeling he has that maybe his kids should be Americans. The way he expresses it, "sentimental reasons", makes those feelings seem pretty trivial, in which case it hardly matters if they don't become Americans. After all, most other Belgians seem to get along perfectly well without being Americans too. But if this is at all something he suspects he might seriously regret not doing, or if it nags him in ways he can't quite put his finger on, he needs to get to the bottom of that in a way random people on the Internet can't help him with.

Comment: Your friendly neighborhood word pedant here (Score 0) 153

by hey! (#49191827) Attached to: Developers Race To Develop VR Headsets That Won't Make Users Nauseous

... with some food for thought.

The ending '-eous' or '-ious' is added to a noun to produce an adjective that means producing whatever that noun is. Something that is 'advantageous' produces advantage for example. Something which is ignominious produce ignominy (shame, embarrassment). Something that is piteous arouses pity in the onlooker.

I think you see where I'm going with this. The word the headline writer should have used is 'nauseated', although making users nauseous in the pedantic sense would certainly be a concern for the developers of any product.

Comment: Re:could not keep watching it (Score 4, Insightful) 142

by circletimessquare (#49189827) Attached to: A Critical Look At CSI: Cyber

I was going to say people aren't that stupid.

But then I remembered that old episode of The Wire where they stick a kid's hand on a copier machine, ask him questions like it's a lie detector, and after he answers, a detective presses the copy button and "LIE" on a piece of paper comes out. The kid actually fell for it when the detectives structured the questions to show he was lying and he broke down and revealed the truth of the incident and gave them their lead.

Found it, apparently based on real life Baltimore PD interrogation techniques:

So I guess they could make this new CSI Cyber even 10x more stupid, and a few months later you'd probably start hearing from people something like...

the NSA can use coffee cups to playback conversations from half an hour ago because of reverberating echoes still trapped inside the cup.

(I just made that up, CSI writing team: give me attribution please.)

Science is to computer science as hydrodynamics is to plumbing.