Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 391

Land a probe on a comet? Fuck no, your shirt is sexist.

It was inappropriate and I would never had heard about the "shirt" if it wasn't for MRAs spending so much of their time complaining that they were offended that someone else somewhere else was offended by the shirt.

Two dudes joking over dongles? That's rape culture.

That was a (maybe not-so) tragic lesson for both the guy and the woman who got fired. She made a big deal over nothing, the company fired the one developer because he embarrassed the company and they already wanted to fire him (a sane employer wouldn't fire a good employee over a single minor incident), and the woman got fired for the backlash her actions caused (and rightly so, she deliberately and publicly made a fuss over a private conversation).

So I guess what I'm saying is if these are your biggest grievances, you should spend more time thinking about how good things must be for you, because if these pathetic examples of injustice are the biggest problems facing you, you don't have any problems at all.

Comment Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 391

Once the child is born, both parents are "forced" into "servitude for years" regardless of gender. However, since the woman has to spend 9 months as an incubator she gets final say on whether the child is born.

That is, of course, until we have early term fetus life support systems, in which case the man should be able to opt to become the sole parent if the woman chooses to terminate the pregnancy. Presumably, if that were possible, then a court could order that the woman pay parental support to the man.

Hurray for equality!

Comment Re:Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 391

Abortion is indeed a deep question, and I would be all for making it illegal if the state incubated the fetus from conception and paid all costs involved in the raising of the resulting child.

That's not very Libertarian. In fact, it's downright Brave New World.

Actually it's not, because there would still be choice. The important thing here is that people aren't "forced" to be incubators and subjugated to a lifetime of servitude.

Uh, what? If you outlaw abortion under ANY terms, women ARE forced to be incubators. Your comment no logic.

Drinky, you need to read closely, the claim is that abortion should be outlawed if and only if, the state outlawing abortion can (without risking the life of the pregnant woman), remove the fetus. Once the fetus is removed, it is then becomes the duty of the state to maintain and grow the fetus using whatever incubator technology they have available.

The second poster claims that position is not libertarian, presumably because he assumes the first poster was talking about forcing all women to give up their pregnancies. I believe the original poster was saying that if the state wishes to pass a law that someone (or something) must be kept alive, then the state also has to be prepared to pay all of the costs (and I'm not just talking about monetary costs) associated with such a law.

The real point was that a Libertarian government should only outlaw abortion when the fetus can be safely removed and raised. Because if the fetus can't be raised external to the woman, then it's tantamount to abortion and if the fetus can't be removed then it's tantamount to a legal form of slavery for women. However, when the fetus can be removed from the woman in a non-abortive procedure, the fetus would become a ward of the state and the woman would no longer has any say in the life (or lack thereof) of the fetus because it is no longer a part of her body (and had been removed at her request). The prohibition on abortion then becomes a prohibition that prevents the attending physician from destroying the fetus after removal, which would actually be consistent with standard libertarian values.

Only a related note, if we outlawed abortion except for rape victims, you and I both know that virtually every rape victim would be challenged in court to make sure it was really rape. I mean, it was just a year or two ago that we had an American congressman opine that there weren't really any children born from rape because a woman couldn't actually get pregnant from "real" rape.

In the end, we can't have nice things because too much money is being spent on harassing and haranguing the victims of tragedy and not enough on developing the technology we actually need to make things better.

Comment Re:I feel so conflicted... (Score 0) 126

There. Not they.

Academia. Not accademia.

Cite. Not site.

Oh, and what "usually" happens when you you use a collection of preused ideas is that you create something that is unoriginal, at best. Though I must admit that your spelling is original. Perhaps that's what you were talking about?

Comment Re:Butterfly Ballot not Supreme Court decided 2000 (Score 1) 633

The state-wide recounts are a fiction.

No, they are a fact. The don't become fiction because you don't like the results.

Gore never requested one.

I didn't say they did. However, at least one of Gore's lawyers said they were in the process of requesting one, when the Florida Supreme court ordered it be done anyway.

The Florida courts only ordered a partial recount of undervotes.

False, the U.S. Supreme court stopped a state-wide recount where the judge had ordered that over-votes also be counted.

The media never had all ballots to do an actual complete statewide recount, thousands of troublesome ballots were never delivered to the media.

I doubt the veracity of that statement, and a quick bit of research turned up nothing to corroborate the claim. It is likely to be false.

Comment Re:should be interesting (Score 1, Insightful) 320

But it is somewhat amusing to watch the racists and the feminists fight over it,

If it turns out the "racists" are correct in some fashion [], does that make them "racists"?

Fortunately for everyone but the racists, their claims are not even close to true. For example, the very prominent claim of a 300% increase in violent crime since 1975, does not seem to be born out by actual data, which seems to show a modest decrease in crime over that time period.

Comment Re:This guy gets it (Score 4, Funny) 661

Remember those little toys that babies are given to help them master spatial ideas? There might be a triangular piece, a circular piece, and a hexagonal piece, and a base with holes of the same shapes. A smart kid (whoops, off I go to PC jail) quickly sees that the circular piece will only fit into the circular hole, and so on.

Actually, the smart kid figures out that all the pieces go in very quickly if you take the top off...

Comment Re:Butterfly Ballot not Supreme Court decided 2000 (Score 1) 633

You missed the words "state-wide" in that sentence. The state-wide recounts showed Gore winning under all of the state-wide recount scenarios (there were other recount scenarios that weren't state-wide that Gore would have lost). Now Gore hadn't (yet) requested state wide recounts, although I remember reading an article where one of Gore's campaign lawyers said they were in the process of requesting a state-wide recount when the case was appealed to the supreme court. Apparently, you need to request a recount in each county individually in Florida, there is no way to request a state-wide recount directly.

Comment Re:Oh you mean just like when (Score 1) 633

Bush won the original count and each recount; the US Supreme Court prevented a fraud wherein Democrats would have forced recounts that continued until the Democrat won, at which point the recounts would have stopped.

I'm not even American, and I know that's not what the actual investigations showed. They showed that Gore would have won under a state-wide recount, but that a recount of just the precincts that had obvious problems would have still left Bush with a very narrow lead.

Other, some would say civilised, countries have rules that say when the result is that close it is mandatory to do a recount by hand with scrutineers from all interested parties present to verify the count, so that there is not even the appearance of corruption in their elections.

Comment Re:IoT (Score 1) 59

That's just a little bit on the silly side. You install the HOSTS file on the router, not every machine in the neighborhood. Tomato and DDWRT both have the capability, depending on precisely which version you've installed.

DO NOT expect any commercial offerings with such configurability - certainly not consumer grade products.

Comment Re:Hmmm (Score 2) 59

High efficiency clothes washer. I've watched, and I can't find where it attempts to connect to anything. The price was right, the savings in water and electricity are great, so I put up with it. The wife is happy with it. As I say, I've watched carefully, and it has never made an appearance on the network. I HOPE it's alright.

If/when it breaks down, I may or may not be able to repair it.

Comment Re:I'd love to see "None of the Above" (Score 1) 169

So basically, you're saying you expect there to be no acceptable candidates for any party ever (or any acceptable independents), and that the victor will always be the person acclaimed when the people are too tired of election campaigns to vote "none of the above" any more?

You would think that in subsequent rounds new candidates that aren't terribly might decide, hey, that position is up for grabs, maybe say to themselves "Hey, maybe I can get elected by not being completely terrible". I know, it's a long shot that anyone running for any political office for any reasons, in any time, or any place, could actually not be terrible, but for just a moment, let us live the dream...

Comment Re:One word (Score 1) 169

You seem to be extraordinarily concerned with getting people into power that somehow "represent" the population. But there is no way of doing that.

Are you sure about that? Because that's exactly what pretty much every voting system other than First Past the Post (plurality) does. It seeks to guarantee that the candidate that the electorate prefers gets elected and not the leading candidate that the electorate least dislikes. That's what "represent the population" means. It means that in a single seat elections, the candidate that the electorate most prefers wins, and in multiple seat elections, that the make up of the body of elected representatives resembles (within a certain granularity) the preferences of the electorate.

I'm not sure I understand how you can claim "there is no way of doing that" when there are clearly multiple different ways of doing that with differing results that we can evaluate. Maybe you need to watch the other videos on that page too...

Slashdot Top Deals

It is contrary to reasoning to say that there is a vacuum or space in which there is absolutely nothing. -- Descartes