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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:GM producers are shooting themselves in the foo (Score 1) 513

If you only buy from companies with a level 2 rating then that would give you a level 3 rating, etc... Again, this shouldn't be something done by the government but something done by the manufacturer based on consumer demand.

There is a serious problem relying on some private entity or consortium. That is, there is nothing preventing another private entity from offering those same ratings.

  You're bound to end up with a few in competition. Kellogg might want an equal or higher rating than Post, so they abandon the Food Producers Consortium and join (or start) the Fair Food Group. Smaller companies might have trouble with the dues and fees or with meeting certain standards (likely tailored to benefit the bigger players) and fall prey to less scrupulous agencies like the Fair Food Bureau.

Consumers, naturally, aren't very likely to understand the differences between the various accreditors, making the ratings useless.

You'd need something like the threat of regulation or a very small industry before you can maintain a functional, single, regulating entity. We have a few examples, of course, like the MPAA and ESRB though you'll note that despite the size in terms of dollars, those industries are rather small in terms of people and major or influential players. They're both also under the threat of regulation, which seems to have incentivized regulation to a large degree.

The much more massive food industry, in contrast, has little chance of self-regulating. We've tried, it turns out that they can't be trusted.

Comment Re:I have to say it's pretty sad.... (Score 1) 518

And no, the first amendment is completely silent on whether or not your professed belief in magic should grant you more power of self expression

What a waste of my time... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This issue isn't about self-expression. (Apparently, you haven't managed to puzzle that out.) It's about specific religious prohibitions or requirements. It's yet another thing the colander wearing morons got wrong. One sensible civil servant denied one of these yahoos their silly hat when they couldn't show that their "religion" prohibited it from being removed. At least in that particular jurisdiction, if your beliefs allow the hat to be removed, there was no exemption. This is the most sensible response I've seen yet.

You don't think that government-issued identification, which is key to everything from boarding an airplane to cashing a check [...] is insignificant?

These pastafarians don't seem to take it very seriously. They treat the whole thing like a joke. You can't have it both ways. To answer your question, yes, it's not that important. As long as the persons face is visible, there isn't any reason to deny them their constitutionally protected rights. Face covering is a more complex issue, though it's been ruled to not be a violation so your fears are groundless for the time being. The face of all those scary Muslims (the one's you're afraid will jump out and get you) will be visible in their passport and ID photos.

Which is why when they are applied unevenly and capriciously, it flies in the face of the constitution.

The only people treating it like it's some kind of a joke are the one's donning colanders at the DMV. By not making exemptions, they'd be violation those individuals constitutionally protected rights. Your solution to this alleged affront to the constitution is to directly violate it!

By picking and choosing which lifestyle clothing (religious or otherwise) is more important than another, and thus deserving or not of government sanction and support, the government IS in the business of religion. How are you not getting that?

You're the one who's confused here. By not making exemptions, they'd be violation those individuals constitutionally protected rights. There's bound to be conflict, which is why exemptions exist. It's not the government getting in to the business of religion, it's the government trying its best to stay out of it!

Your solution seems to be to abandon those exemptions, which would then violate the constitutionally protected rights of others. You either care about the constitution or you don't. You clearly don't. If you don't like it, lobby for an amendment. Don't waste our tax dollars and limited public resources on nonsense like this.

The more we dig at this, the more fundamental problems with this absurd movement we seems to find. As I've said before: it actively works against the interests of those involved. It's completely irrational.

Comment Re:I have to say it's pretty sad.... (Score 1) 518

The issue of photo IDs is a very significant one,

I should have stopped reading there. If you think this issue is significant, you're crazier than the average suicide bomber.

But they've already BEEN making the decision to let nuts where things on their heads in official ID photos. Just not all nuts. That's a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution.

No, it's not. Religion, as you know, is specifically protected by the first amendment. Your desire to wear a silly hat is not afforded the same protection as a hat worn for religious purposes. The exceptions to the no-hat in your photo ID rules exist specifically to keep the government out of the religion business. This is a first amendment issue, with the relevant part being "or prevent the free exercise thereof". Exemptions must necessarily be made to accommodate religious beliefs.

If you don't like it, lobby for an amendment to remove the protections afforded to religion. Wearing a colander on your head isn't going to get you anywhere. It's not even going to make anyone think that "religion is silly" or even that "religious protections are silly." The only message it sends is "atheists are silly".

You're obsessing about one rhetorical device and deliberately covering your ears whenever anyone talks about what's actually at stake.

What, exactly, is at stake? These protections have existed since the nation was founded. Whatever imaginary harm you think this has caused is minimal compared to the damage should those protections be removed, and the government was free to involve itself in the business of religion.

Comment Re:All right! (Score 1) 196

No, I do not imply such. I imply that is what the SJW's, such as feminists, want.

You're deeply confused. Try reading that section again.

No, they don't face artificial barriers not faced by men.


They once did, but they haven't for well over a decade

At least you acknowledge those barriers exist! Now, what do you think changed? How were those barriers universally lifted in the last decade? As far as anyone else can tell, things are the same as they were in 2005.

You are just incapable of seeing through the veil that has been pulled over your eyes

Lol! It's a conspiracy, man! They've been, like, lying to you about everything. The truth is out there!

Do you hear yourself?

Comment Re:All right! (Score 1) 196

Think, for just a few moments, about why your argument isn't convincing to anyone. It's better if you figure this out for yourself.

give me your safe, high paying job that you worked hard to get

You imply here that women don't work hard to get those safe, high-paying, jobs and that they're forcing men in to dangerous low-paying jobs. This tells me a couple things: First, you don't think women are as capable or hard-working as men. Second, you're afraid that you can't compete in a job market that doesn't marginalize women.

The facts are that women face artificial barriers not faced by men, meaning they need to work harder than men to reach those safe, high-paying, positions. Attitudes like yours, such as believing women to be less capable, contribute to those barriers. The glass-ceiling is so named because it's an invisible barrier, imposed by regressive attitudes, not written rules, that keep women from reaching the same heights.

Let's try an example: We have two candidates for promotion, Alice and Bob. Alice is the obvious choice, having both seniority and better numbers than Bob. Bob's no slouch, being a hard-worker with decent numbers. Alice and Bob both have families. People wonder why Alice even wants the promotion as she has kids at home. At the same time, they hope Bob gets the promotion as he's a good family man who could use the pay raise. These regressive attitudes regarding traditional gender roles give Bob an edge over Alice -- even without the blatant misogynistic attitudes you express.

This isn't complicated.

Comment Re:I have to say it's pretty sad.... (Score 1) 518

For all of humanity, which would benefit greatly from a reduction in magical thinking and especially in government endorsement of magical thinking.

And you believe you can accomplish this goal by wearing a colander on your head in your drivers license photo?

The FSM letter challenged the state government to either embrace the FSM as another "legitimate" perspective or explain why the more popular mainstream religious mythology WAS "legitimate" while the FSM was not.

You mean annoying a few folks at the DMV and, in your best case, wasting tax dollars and the limited resources of our courts. Rest assured, it was not the glorious victory you believe it to be but more along the lines of "we don't want to deal with this, let the nut wear their hat".

Talk about delusion and magical thinking...

Comment Re:Another attack on Christianity (Score 1) 518

Luckily for atheists, they don't have to "be associated" with other atheists.

Well, that's where you're wrong. Like it or not, as a member of a group, you'll be judged by the actions of other members of that group. Don't like it? Neither do Muslims, who have suffered no end of harassment and discrimination post 9/11. Ask any Christan how they feel about the idots complaining about red cups at Starbucks. I'll bet a nickle that you didn't think about the complaintants in individual terms, just a few select nuts, but as Christians in general. A few morons made them all look foolish.

Nor is it a cohesive group where one has any direct way of communication with others, or some "leaders" have any direct way of communication with most atheists.

That's no different than any other religion. No central authority, singular group, or means by which to communicate directly with most adherants. Even the Moroms, small and young as they are, have multiple groups that don't answer to the same central authority. There are groups and people influential across multiple groups, naturally, but, again, the same is true for atheism. There are media personalities that speak on behalf of atheists, just like there are media personalities that speak on behalf of Christians. There are even organized atheists groups, just like there are organized groups for virtually every religion. There are even atheist churches.

You may not like it, but that's reality.

So all morons here are only making themselves look like morons.

That's just delusional. Particularly in this case as the Pastafarians appear to be exactly what you think doesn't exist: an organized atheist group with a central authority. It could be argued that is just that, offering ordinations, handing down edicts, and providing a way for followers to interact -- even organized in-person meetings.

As an atheist, these people make you look foolish. There's simply no way around that. You can deny it, as you've been doing, or stand-up and face reality.

Comment Re:Another attack on Christianity (Score 2) 518

The point of parody is to act exactly like the object of the parody, minus the context, thereby displaying the stupidity of the object of the parody.

You don't seem to realize that it has failed to convey that message.

FSM appears to have worked beautifully as a parody of a belief in an invisible all-powerful sky-friend who has no power.

Nonsense. All it's done is to give a few attention-starved people a few minutes of fame and to make atheists, not theists, look foolish. It has had the exact opposite of it's intended effect. By any measure, it's an abject failure.

Comment Re:Athiest Symbol (Score 1) 518

Where to begin? The question I have here is what you believe they're taking to an absurd conclusion? I'm not convinced you know. There's also the implication here that what other groups are doing is necessarily less absurd than wearing colanders in their ID photos. Is that intentional or did you simply not think this all the way through?

Moving on, if there is some message here, it's certainly not being communicated to the audience they're intending to reach. (I say "if" as it look a lot more like a cry for attention than a serious attempt to do ... whatever it is they're trying to accomplish.) The obvious end result being that they make atheists look foolish, rather than the religious. It's counter to their goals.

Actively working against your own interests is just as ridiculous as going around wearing cookware on your head. They're doing both in tandem.

Comment Re:Another attack on Christianity (Score 1) 518

I seriously doubt any religious person is offended by this, or the many other, lunatics wearing colanders on their heads in their photo ID's. If anyone should be offended, it's atheists as these folks make them look so damn foolish.

Christians don't want to be associated with the WBC, nor Muslims with ISIS. They know that those crackpots make them all look bad. Why any atheist would want to be associated with these people is beyond me. Why the American Humanist Association stepped in and helped to make atheists look like morons is completely inexplicable.

"Atomic batteries to power, turbines to speed." -- Robin, The Boy Wonder