Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Venutians vs Martians (Score 1) 253 253

If some guy is born one day with red eyes that let him see through the clouds and hair all over his face that protects him from the things in the atmosphere then that's going to be for nothing if no woman wants to have his kids.

Given the pairings I've been seeing lately, that shouldn't be a problem.

Comment: Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl (Score 1) 146 146

Heck just being outted as gay, lesbian or even transsexual can bring you a lot of problem, even in western democracy like the US.

Or it can get you on the front page of every magazine, and revive your seriously fading celebrity.

Comment: Re:That's good (Score 5, Interesting) 146 146

Is it reasonable to have reports of this incident immediately served up when any potential employer googles his name?

Yes. Google's job is to index the context of web pages. Google is NOT responsible for the content or truthfulness of those pages. If web pages out there have his name on them Google should return those pages when someone searches for that string. If this man has a problem with the content of a page he should take it up with the people who published the page.

At least in a sane world, this is how things would operate.

Comment: Re:A small part of me (Score 1) 591 591

A small part of me wanted to see this go down, just to watch the shitstorm that resulted and see the Republicans claim that it wasn't their fault.

None of this is their fault. This whole unpopular law (among people, as opposed to elites) is the fault of Democrats.

We didn't want this, and the fact that your little provision that is designed to force states into setting up exchanges backfired on you should mean just that: that it backfired on you. You shouldn't get to have the Supreme Court rewrite the law for you to mean the opposite of what it says and of what it's architect bragged that it meant.

Comment: Re: what is interesting is not that it won (Score 1) 591 591

The actual architect of the law, as well as some other people involved with the writing, specifically stated at the time the law was being written that the purpose of the tax credit only applying to State exchanges was to force uncooperative states to comply with the law.

Well ... sure, but who you gonna believe, the actual architect of the law, or today's left wing talking points?

We've always been at war with Oceana ...

Comment: Re:This is interesting (Score 2) 163 163

Why is it necessary to add random chemicals? How can that be "cheaper"?

It's cheaper to not have food spoil. It's cheaper not to transport and store parts of food that everyone cuts off and throws away. It's cheaper to synthesize ascorbic acid than it is to extract it from fruits, and the ascorbic acid is identical. Etc.

Comment: Re:Just more proof (Score 1) 141 141

... that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

The philosophy with these "free" lunches is puzzling in any case.

Are WIC, plus food stamps, plus ADC/TANF/FIP/whatever they are calling it now, combined, not enough to provide food for kids to brown bag it?

If they are designed to be enough, that is, to include lunch. then why can't the parents just, you know, send lunch?

Or is the premise here that poor parents must also be abusive and not willing to feed their children?

And before you get mad at me, I didn't design all these programs. I'm just asking a logical question.

Comment: uh huh (Score 2, Insightful) 294 294

The question may really be whether we can get past paid trolls, FUD, and finger pointing in order to act wisely in a timely manner

In other words, "the question is whether we can get past people who don't agree instantly with me. We just need to put aside our differences and agree with me. "

There are never any bugs you haven't found yet.

Working...