Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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:Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 1037

Being a hate-filled Christian is a choice, being gay isn't. What's so difficult to understand about that?

So, you're in favor of the Westboro Baptists forcing LGBT-owned bakeries to bake cakes with "God Hates Gays" and other equally disgusting slogans? You'd like to see black-owned bakeries forced to bake cakes with "Niggers Are Monkeys" for the KKK?

That is what you're advocating for.

Of course to realize this you would have to have spent some time actually "thinking" about the subject rather than simply "emote" your way through logical problems.

Strat

Comment: Re:Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 1037

This is another power grab by the religious right. It is connected to their efforts to restrict sex (through access to contraception, sex education, abortion, etc) and control the lives of Americans in the bedroom. But you know what? Every article, every boycott and every protest is pushing them back. Similar bills are stalling or failing. The outrage at actions like these are causing more and more Americans to leave their religion in disgust. The more we drag this bullshit into the light, the more the theocrats feel the heat.

Just, wow. This is not about some vast right-wing religious conspiracy or hatred for some group or groups.

This is about not being forced to advocate for a religious/ideological/political belief/position to which one is fundamentally opposed.

From my post here: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Sell somebody a cake regardless of race/religion/sex or sexual orientation/etc/etc fine. No problem.

Being forced to *participate in and/or advocate* for or against a religious principle or political/ideological position, *there* is where the problem lies.

For example, an LGBT-owned bakery should not be forced to provide a cake with "God Hates Fags" on it for the Westboro Baptist nutjobs. Provide a generic cake? Yes. Provide the message? No.

Same thing here. Provide a cake, yes. Participate in advocating LGBT practices, no.

Why is this so difficult a concept to understand? What gives anyone the right to force someone else to participate in and/or advocate for something they are fundamentally opposed to?

Strat

Comment: Re:Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 1037

Sell somebody a cake regardless of race/religion/sex or sexual orientation/etc/etc fine. No problem.

Being forced to *participate in and/or advocate* for or against a religious principle or political/ideological position, *there* is where the problem lies.

For example, an LGBT-owned bakery should not be forced to provide a cake with "God Hates Fags" on it for the Westboro Baptist nutjobs. Provide a generic cake? Yes. Provide the message? No.

Same thing here. Provide a cake, yes. Participate in advocating LGBT practices, no.

Why is this so difficult a concept to understand? What gives anyone the right to force someone else to participate in and/or advocate for something they are fundamentally opposed to?

Strat

Comment: Re:Christian Theocracy (Score 2, Insightful) 1037

Actually the entire idea of these special entitlements that destroy individual rights TO DISCRIMINATE is a power grab by the insane government that is out of control.

Individual people discriminate every day. As a potential employee you can choose to work for a one legged Brazilian tranny and there is nothing any of the other potential employers can do to stop this obvious bigotry and discrimination by you against their businesses, NOR should there be anything they could do to force you to work for them. That's EXACTLY the same thing.

PRECISELY the same thing, since you working for a company is exactly like a company doing work for other people. When you buy a product you are buying work done by a company for you. A company is people standing behind it (corporations are in fact people, not as in 'Google is a living person', it is not. It is as in Google is owned by people, that's the people corporations are). A person that owns/runs a company has his or her right to discriminate and the Constitution of the USA is there to protect that right.

A right is a protection against government oppression and abuse, nothing else.

A government telling somebody that just because they are employing somebody they now lost a right is abuse and oppression and a power grab and unconstitutional and illegal and immoral.

Should people discriminate against each other based on sex, gender, age, race, colour? We know that some will and some do. If a business does so, it will face consequences whatever they are in the market. As to a belief that just because a business exists somewhere you automatically get an entitlement to their service - that is hubris and destruction of the people running that business as individuals and it cannot stand.

Comment: Re:Hopefully this gows (Score 5, Informative) 165

by Mr Thinly Sliced (#49369145) Attached to: At the Track With Formula E, the First e-Racing Series

> Formula 1 jumped the shark when they disallowed ground effects.

Ground effects whilst technologically interesting suffer from safety problems.

As soon as a car deviates from the optimum ride height for the undertray effects to work the downforce varies significantly. This is a problem when apex speeds are significantly higher due to the extra downforce created by ground effects.

Hit a bump the wrong way and lose downforce == shoot off the corner at much higher speeds into the barrier.

Comment: Re:And why not? (Score 1) 202

The reason we don't get newer designs in the US is purely regulatory - it would cost billions to certify a new reactor technology, so companies find it cheaper to just build another copy

You do realize that your point supports my position. One major way that humans are faulty with regard to today's nuclear fission is the amount of administratium that interferes with every aspect of that industry. Engineers do not study administratium and are not trained in its management. And yet over the long term it is one of the most dangerous elements in water cooled nuclear plant operations.

Comment: Re:Your Fault (Score 5, Insightful) 158

by Bob9113 (#49368645) Attached to: Europol Chief Warns About Computer Encryption

I'm gonna pretend you're actually interested in the answer, but let's face it, we're really talking past each other, to our fellow Slashdotters. Thank you for smoking.

The reason for the mass move to encryption -- like Wikipedia and Google moving to default HTTPS, and people like me working on making encryption more approachable by the masses -- was the revelation that non-suspects were being monitored. That is why there is now a haystack within which to hide the needles, and that is why the encryption is now too strong for the intelligence agencies to break when we really want them to be able to.

Moreover, while I'm here, and since I want terrorists to get caught, let me add this: The solution is not increasing the level of distrust between citizens and government. The solution is restoring the reasonable, moderated, level of trust that we used to have in the executive branch. That starts with the ones who created the rift, and that is not the people who were sending all their traffic in the clear; it is the assholes who recorded it all and denied they were doing it.

Comment: Re:And why not? (Score 2) 202

Well, the problem is not in the current reactor designs. Those are as good as it gets.

The problem is in the reactor designers who consistently fail to recognize that the humans who implement the designs are completely faulty material. Humans screw up. Every reactor failure that has ever occurred is because humans screwed up. There is no possible way any of today's nuclear reactor designs can be made safe, because the ingenuity with which humans can screw up is astronomical while the designs of safety mechanisms are necessarily more finite.

I would like to hear more about thorium reactors. But India is working on those and here in the USA there is a tremendous NIH problem. Which is another form of humans screwing up.

Comment: Re:Now I understand her record at HP (Score 1) 350

by Will.Woodhull (#49367725) Attached to: Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina Near Launching Presidential Bid

IMHO, Republican primary voters appear incapable of recognizing competency. There are several good Republican Governors out there, but they're not on anybody's radar screen.

IMO, the problem is that the Republicans who are politically savvy are seeking to become governors or powerful legislators at the State level because they have sense enough to stay away from the national scene. At the national level, Republican politics is a chaotic whirlpool of tea partiers, evangelicals, super-capitalists, anti-thises and anti-thats that will suck under anyone who can actually DO politics, and will toss some random joker up to the top to be the next candidate.

Comment: Re:Now I understand her record at HP (Score 1) 350

by Will.Woodhull (#49367671) Attached to: Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina Near Launching Presidential Bid

I would like some kind of Phoenix Party to rise from the ashes of the Republican Party. But I don't think that is going to happen. I think America is going to become a one-party system with jumble of political clowns on the other side of the aisle for perhaps a decade. It will probably take that long for the clowns to destroy the remaining infrastructure that the GOP had put together between its re-emergence in the early 1900s and 1980.

Comment: Re:Build a second cockpit (Score 1) 441

by Will.Woodhull (#49367333) Attached to: Why the Final Moments Inside a Cockpit Are Heard But Not Seen

But on a serious note, I think we probably have the technology now to make both pilot and cockpit redundant, and probably even allow someone outside the aircraft to land the thing, when something really bad happens. It seems to me the only major obstacles to developing this are human and institutional inertia. This would be a fundamental change in all kinds of roles.

And I hope my sense of humor in the last post does not offend anyone. What happened to that A320 was a gruesome tragedy. There should be no denial about that.

Computers will not be perfected until they can compute how much more than the estimate the job will cost.

Working...