Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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: This sewer of hate is not about gender (Score 1) 779

by rilian4 (#48963445) Attached to: WA Bill Takes Aim at Boys' Dominance In Computer Classes
A-freaking-men. Preach it! Studies done a few years back showed women in STEM (Sci, Tech, Eng., Math) fields had lower natural estrogen counts. Doesn't mean it has to be that way. I can guarantee you that few boys in HS or men in college would say no to having more girls/women around in the so called "nerd" classes. I am saddened that Washington State, a place that I called home for 10 years as a child, is trying to force out boys from a field by threatening to withhold money just because there aren't "enough" girls in the classes. Politicians have zero right to meddle in such things. It's pathetic.

My perception of the problem shows that a contributing factor (even at the college level) may be that girls/women don't want to be around socially awkward and many times smelly boys/men.

Comment: Re:The basic question no one has asked is... (Score 1) 335

by rilian4 (#41095377) Attached to: Why Cell Phone Bans Don't Work
Your comment is excellent. Those in power (usually liberals) that pass these kinds of laws simply have the exact opposite mindset from freedom. Whether it be gun control, seat belts or cell phones or any other aspect of your life, if you haven't hurt anyone, there is no reason for the government to step in. There are plenty of laws on the books in all 50 states about murder and assault but governments feel the need to tack on controls over gun ownership. There are plenty of laws on the books about manslaughter yet governments feel the need to go after drivers who simply spoke to someone on the phone even if they didn't cause a fatal crash. Those in government want to control every aspect of our lives thus continual passing of laws that restrict people's freedom all in the name of safety, security, etc.

Comment: Re:It's even worse (Score 1) 826

by rilian4 (#41095123) Attached to: Booted From Airplane For Wearing Anti-TSA T-shirt
Delta could still be held liable (lawsuit for example) for not letting the guy and his wife on the place since they purchased tickets. If the TSA were the ones who escorted him off the plane, you might have a place to say that the TSA had no authority to do so as it would then be a 1st amendment violation as TSA is part of the federal government. If company representatives escorted him off, then 1st amendment certainly would not apply.

Comment: Re:Environmentally friendly? (Score 1, Insightful) 164

by rilian4 (#40984821) Attached to: Alternative To QR Code Uses NFC and Cheap Rectennas

They are seen as a ... environmentally friendly way to overcome the limitations and inconvenience of QR codes...

I'm mystified how that works. Its not like QR codes are inherently toxic by shape, like prions, nanoparticles, or asbestos fibers.

Using the phrase 'Environmentally Friendly' is how you get liberals to use (or at the very least not blacklist) your product whether it has anything to do with actually being helpful to the environment or not.

Comment: Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score 4, Funny) 571

by rilian4 (#40973839) Attached to: Let the Campaign Edit Wars Begin
Giving people an option to take their money out of Social Security is the right thing to do. Getting rid of socialism in the government can only improve government and the economy. Freedom will win out every time. If one could wave a magic wand and get rid of the incumberance of medical insurance, we'd immediately see a drastic reduction in medical expenses. In a truly free economy w/o insurance to prop it up, the medical industry would have to drastically reduce costs as no one can pay what they charge now.

The answer is not more insurance, that makes the problem worse. The answer is to get the 800lb government gorilla off of our collective chests and let us be free.

Comment: Re:The movie was too violent for me (Score -1, Offtopic) 263

by rilian4 (#40719113) Attached to: Movie Review: <em>The Dark Knight Rises</em>
If you are going to have the gall to violate my right to bear arms, please pass an amendment striking down the 2nd amendment from the bill of rights. At least then it would be legal. Until then the government is legally restricted from taking away anyone's guns (not that they don't violate the constitution on a daily basis and do it anyway)

Comment: you were warned... (Score -1, Troll) 513

and you ignored the warning. Those of us who were not in the liberal democratic camp (libertarians, conservatives, etc) warned that this man was exceedingly dangerous to elect as president and that many many freedoms would be lost despite his promises to the contrary and you all voted for him anyway. You are reaping what you sowed. This country has lapsed into a dictatorship.

Comment: Re:I'm okay with this (Score 1) 299

by rilian4 (#40312093) Attached to: Police Using YouTube To Tell Their Own Stories
Wrong. Liberty is not a 2 way street. Liberty is about freedom from government...one direction. The US Constitution (your country's laws will vary) was written to limit government to the powers stated within. There is nothing, repeat, nothing in the constitution that allows government to limit the liberty of the individual without cause and due process. Conversely, an individual police officer *is* a free citizen as well as a law-enforcement agent. If said officer is charged with a crime (in this case using more force than is allowed for the situation, etc), then they have the right to defend themselves in court as would any other citizen.

Comment: Re:What a terrible idea (Score 1) 842

by rilian4 (#40259489) Attached to: California City May Tax Sugary Drinks Like Cigarettes
Outlawing a product that is in high demand will simply drive up the price and put it on the black market. See Prohibition Era. It didn't work then (it led to a massive spike in violent crime that disappeared virtually overnight when the ban was overturned) and it won't work now. What the ban on alcohol did not do was reduce alcohol consumption. It just drove people who consumed underground and into doing it illegally. It's not the government's job to tell free citizens what they can and can't put into their body. They can educate. They can advise. They can tax. But they have no right nor power granted in the constitution to force free citizens *not* to consume something. This country is so twisted around and has forgotten what made it great...Freedom. Pure and Simple.

Comment: Re:Ridiculous, Impossible, Etc. (Score 1) 398

by rilian4 (#40088639) Attached to: Legislation In New York To Ban Anonymous Speech Online

This is why I never bought the whole "we should leave more things up to the states to decide" line of argument: as bad as the US Congress is, state legislatures are generally solidly worse; they just don't get as much press. Or maybe this is just a New York thing and other states are different, I don't know.

The constitution doesn't give you a choice. It clearly states that power not explicitly delegated to the federal government must be relegated to the states or the people. You don't like it? Amend the constitution.

"Ada is the work of an architect, not a computer scientist." - Jean Icbiah, inventor of Ada, weenie