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:In other words... (Score 1) 168

by np2392 (#45094455) Attached to: Will Cloud Services One Day Be Traded Just Like Stocks and Bonds?
My initial thought exactly. Oh boy! More suit and ties getting rich off something they didn't create and don't understand, all in the name of "it's in the best interest of the consumer! Trust us!'. Gotta make sure little Johnny can put his business school degree to use and get rich quick right?

Comment: Slippery slope (Score 1) 162

by np2392 (#43603725) Attached to: Belgian Media Group Demanding Copyright Levy for Internet Access
This type of thinking is so idiotic. So should high speed internet access be illegal since some users can use it to pirate easier? Why should the ISPs share in the blame for what their users are doing? All they are doing is giving them access. What's next? It's illegal to talk in groups of more than three people because you COULD be planning a terrorist attack?

Comment: Re:This is false "speech" (Score 1) 270

by np2392 (#42822687) Attached to: Finnish Minister Wants To Expand Pornography Censorship

approval of which would suggest approval of deviancy and thus marginalize those of non-deviant lifestyles.

Ignoring the fact that you can't actually marginalize non-deviants, your statement is incredibly hypocritical. According to you, it's okay to take away people's rights (thus marginalizing them) to do what they want with their lives, because this somehow marginalizes people who are not affected by it at all. If we allow "deviants" the freedom to do what they want with their private lives then "normal" people are somehow marginalized, but if we ACTUALLY marginalize the deviants then it's okay because we're on a moral crusade?

The solution is to just say fuck it and let people do what they want with their private lives. Do I particularly approve of someone who wants to sit in their basement and masturbate to animal porn all day? No. Does this affect me in any way? Do their actions have any influence on my life? NO! It is their life and their choice to do what they want. Who am I to say what is right and wrong for them to do with their lives?

In the words of Frank Reynolds from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, "Who gives a shit if gays want to be miserable like everybody else and get married? Let 'em do it! It's no skin off my ass!"

Comment: Re:Of course not (Score 2, Insightful) 470

by np2392 (#42804633) Attached to: Is the Era of Groundbreaking Science Over?
"p.s. the reason there are more females in interior design is that more females enjoy that kind of work/challenge." I don't understand why more people don't accept this. Why is thinking that their is a fundamental difference between the sexes and that they are better suited for different hobbies/challenges/activities so wrong? Why do we push for equality for equality's sake? You are seeing this with video games recently and the complaints that the video game industry is sexist, there aren't enough women in the industry, games are not made equally for men and women, etc. Why is it not okay to just accept that video games are a hobby that have a special appeal for males? The same thing applies to science. No one is saying women can't be scientists, it's just that the male gender is more likely to be better suited for the role of a scientist. It doesn't mean women are stupider or worse than men, it just means they think differently. Why is difference such a bad thing?

Comment: Random letters (Score 1) 383

by np2392 (#42752123) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Name Conflicts In Automatically Generated Email Addresses?
My university has a pretty weird system. It's If there's conflict they add an extra letter. So the first John Smith would be The next one would be If it's a really common name, they just add arbitrary letters. I know someone named Pat Kelly and his email is Always seemed strange to me.

Comment: Re:Provoking (Score 1) 1130

by np2392 (#42731919) Attached to: Machine Gun Fire From Military Helicopters Flying Over Downtown Miami
So if the gun advocates' argument is that we need guns because the spirit of the 2nd Amendment is so that people can protect themselves from the government, then shouldn't everyone be equipped with one of these? You know, just in case we ever need to defend ourselves from big brother? Why do we need pistols and assault rifles then? Clearly I'm for gun control, but I'm not saying some gun advocates don't have rational arguments. The argument that "we need guns to protect ourselves from the tyrannical government" is just not one of them.

Comment: Re:Almost no one is killed by "assault weapons" (Score 1) 1862

by np2392 (#42591613) Attached to: 3D Printable Ammo Clip Skirts New Proposed Gun Laws
This is the worst kind of argument. This isn't the movies where the good guy always wins. Just because you have a gun and are a "good guy" doesn't mean you will automatically always stop the "bad guys" with a gun. If you put people in schools with guns, all it means is that they'll be the first targets at the next school shooting.

[Crash programs] fail because they are based on the theory that, with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby a month. -- Wernher von Braun