Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The Majority Still Has Follow the Constitution (Score 1) 1083

And again, I reiterate what I said earlier. Where do rights come from?

You're missing the whole point of what the founding fathers and the US constitution was attempting to create.

These inalienable rights "come from" nowhere. They exist innately and the constitution was written largely to express this, and to prevent laws from being created which would stifle or try to remove them. The social construct aspect applies insofar as to how to balance things when the desires or actions of one person impact the rights of another person.

Funny thing that the majority opinion that you are defending clearly says that these rights are social constructs and not only that but that they are found.

Comment Re:well.. (Score 2) 760

This ain't the US. Finland does have a justice system that deserves the name.

Money doesn't buy you a get out of jail card there.

To make this statement you would need to have intimate knowledge of both Finnish justice system and US justice system.

Your "example" about money shows that you don't have knowledge of either of them. Finland's justice system, and obviously so for those who pay any attention, is quite corruptible and incompetent. It is wasteful and inefficient. This statement is backed by the fact that I do live in Finland and I do pay attention to our legal system.

I do not know how our system compares to others. I can fully expect similar problems with other legal systems as they also are run by people.

By the way, just to make a point about you silly point about "money buying out of jail card": In Finland white collar crime usually goes unpunished. In rare cases where it is punished, the punishments are in range of "fines or 2-20 months of jail time." Compare this to Mr. Madoff rotting in jail the rest of his life or 150 year which ever is shorter.

Comment Fear mongering (Score 1) 290

a possible arms race that could lead to a nuclear war

Yeah. For the clarity to other readers, this statement is not supported by any logic nor by any argument. It is just that "some analysts" (i.e. probably some dude the author met in a pub) say that something could lead to "nuclear escalation". It is there to attract eye balls and clicks. Now that we have agreed that the whole talk about "nuclear war" or "nuclear escalation", we can focus on discussing this pretty cool sounding hypersonic weaponry stuff.

Comment Re:Mr. Thiel (Score 1) 441

Mr. Thiel,

You were born rich to obviously rich parents who could afford to send you to Stanford for your undergraduate and graduate degrees.

You're still rich today.

Congratulations. You did not lose your fortune, something almost impossible today due to favorable taxation for the wealthy.

Once you're rich you stay that way forever in the United States unless you're a very stupid person.

The 99%.

The fact that he has wacky ideas does not surprise me. Rich people are born that way, being given every advantage in life. People don't get rich by being particularly intelligent. They pay people to do everything for them, and unless they're very stupid they get much richer in the process.

Please make even some rudimentary research before posting stuff like this. I know that social mobility is not that large in US but to imply that Mr. Thiel doesn't owe his fortune to his smarts and character is just silly. He's been making good bet pretty consistently, been optimistic about future and exemplary in his way of trying to achieve something by his own work. You can disagree with him on certain matters but if you are willing to read what he writes, you will have to admit that he's pretty smart guy. Also, his family was just a normal middle class family with father doing chemical engineering.

Comment Re:Zero emissions (Score 1) 695

It's time for the alarmist side to stop pretending there are any policy choices on the table to prevent the warming they are predicting.

What the *fuck* are you talking about? There's plenty of stuff that can be done. The only reason that they're not being done is that the wealthy would have to foot the bill, and they don't want to.

Good to know. Would be so kind and tell us what these solutions are and how the wealthy are stopping us from putting them in practice.

And then a note to everyone modding parent Insightful: I know that you are having your monthly Let's Blame It on Rich field day here. But I think that you could even try to pretend to have an intelligent discussion here. Like if someone says "I don't think there are solutions" then an answer saying "Yes there is but rich folk are not allowing them" does not count as a constructive discussion.

Comment Re:more pseudo science (Score 1) 869

Oh this is rich. The AC calling the scientists ignorant about how the peer review process works. Nice try AC, but GP is right, peer reviewers systematically try to tear pretty much anything that comes their way to shreds. I'm a scientists, and not only do I see this happening to my papers, I do the same to the papers I get to review. Extremely critical reviewers are an essential part of the scientific process.

Contrary to GP, I feel it's normal that it's so difficult to get a paper published. What is not normal is that scientists are under such high pressure to get so many papers published per year; the process could benefit from some "slowing down". But that's an entirely different discussion.

It is well documented that climate science circles are small and papers with a right conclusions are easier to publish as papers with the wrong conclusions.

The fact that in your field the process works well, does not mean that it works well in another fields.

Comment Re:more pseudo science (Score 2) 869

Hopefully in a journal that is reviewed by skeptics rather than Ideologues.

All scientific journals are reviewed by skeptics.

That's because all scientists are skeptics.

This is just patently false.

James Hansen, one of the leading scientist sitting on top of the time series, called for trials of energy company executives for "high crimes against humanity and nature". When a human commits himself to such political ambitions, it becomes much harder to objectively accept position which would undermine the strong political stand he's taking.

Or how about the personification of "climate scientist", Michael Mann? Well, he refers to his fellow scientist who are not sharing his preconceived opinions as "not helping the cause".

These examples does not speak about scientists excising scepticism but more like political activists doing group thinking.

Comment Re:The Re-Hate Campaign (Score 1) 1116

Reposted because of moderation abuse. Mods, at least READ the comments you're modding down. When a group of people is trying to put words in your mouth, lying about what you're saying

Sir, your abominable messages equating gay sex to bestiality have to stop. I understand that you try to convince others of normalcy of gay sex by comparing it to your personal experiences having sex with goats. Nevertheless, we feel that it is offensive and moderators are right to continue to mod down your vile messages.

Or did I mean to say that they might down vote you if you just rant and harp about your own point of view without listening anyone. Telling others to "STFU" is not constructive messaging.

I can't remember but do carry on.

Comment Re:The Re-Hate Campaign (Score 1) 1116

2) A segment of the public was in opposition to his cause, and spoke out opposing his viewpoint - fine

You are not being completely honest here. Let's be precise here: They didn't speak out opposing his viewpoint. They spoke out against the person making the point. Not only didn't they try to convince anyone about their views, they singled out one person to be bullied and harassed.

3) A website stopped allowing Mozilla on their site due to being in opposition of his viewpoint - fine

And bullied and harassed they did basically attacking the employee of the said person forcing them to fire him. Nice job.

Bear in mind that these actions that you are fine with are nothing more than actions trying to stifle political discussion by harassing individuals. Giving campaign contributions that target in convincing others about a certain view (even an objectionable view) is different from harassing individuals. The first adds to discussion, the latter removes from it.

The Military

United States Begins Flying Stealth Bombers Over South Korea 567

skade88 writes "The New York Times is reporting that the United States has started flying B-2 stealth bomber runs over South Korea as a show of force to North Korea. The bombers flew 6,500 miles to bomb a South Korean island with mock explosives. Earlier this month the U.S. Military ran mock B-52 bombing runs over the same South Korean island. The U.S. military says it shows that it can execute precision bombing runs at will with little notice needed. The U.S. also reaffirmed their commitment to protecting its allies in the region. The North Koreans have been making threats to turn South Korea into a sea of fire. North Korea has also made threats claiming they will nuke the United States' mainland."

Comment Re:give me data not personal opinions or beliefs (Score 1) 655

Show me the numbers. Not someone's opinion about what they mean, but a detailed description of each experiment and the raw data that resulted.

They already have: it's called the scientific literature. It's not their fault you haven't taken the time and effort to read and understand it.

You obviously haven't followed Stephen McIntyre's never ending battles with Michael Mann and other luminaries in climate science community. Basically what we have is somewhat vague scientific literature and concentrated effort to hide the data and the details of methods.

Comment Re:Job Performance (Score 1) 401

As long as it was between consenting adults, an affair is between him, the 'afairee' and his family.

I disagree. The husband of Paula Broadwell (the 'afairee' as you put it) has the right to know that his wife is seriously two-timing him. If this getting this public is the only way of getting the word to him then so be it.

As long as it doesn't effect one's job performance its really nobody's business.

The director of CIA should not put himself in a position where he can be blackmailed. This is such a basic stuff that I'm willing to guess that CIA has a policy on this.

Comment Re:Personal attacks (Score 0) 605

Wait for the dirty tricks and personal attacks to begin.

The fossil fuel lobby won't take such a show of flagrant anti-rich, anti-1% dissent lying down.

Like the poor fool who dares to step between the pigs and their swill, this fellow is gonna get mauled.

That is just bullshit.

First, there is no great conspiracy of evil "fossil fuel lobby".

Second, fossil fuels are the friend of the poor. It is Al Gore and other obnoxiously rich people who can afford their electricity bill to threefold without any impact to their lifestyle. Make no mistake about it: If the solutions that are on the table for solving the global warming are implemented, it is the poor who will see their level of confort plummeting. They probably won't be able to afford such luxuries as private automobiles. Meanwhile Al Gore will be still living in his air conditioned castles while flying between them with his private jet.

Slashdot Top Deals

If it happens once, it's a bug. If it happens twice, it's a feature. If it happens more than twice, it's a design philosophy.