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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Transparency in Government is good! (Score 2) 334

Incorrect. They did have an open discussion; I watched parts of it. However, it appeared GOP had already decided before the meeting that they wanted to kill ACA rather than shape it. Because of that, the "discussion" quickly morphed into the usual culture-war lectures and slogans rather than bill details.

I remember trying to talk about the Obamacare legislation, before it passed. I would say something to the effect of, "I have a concern about the concept of X, and how it will be put into practice." The typical response to me would be, "Well, you're just racist, then." And that would end the conversation.

Comment All government is not the same. (Score 4, Insightful) 250

"I have no faith in government to be an ISP."

I have no faith in the federal government to run an ISP. They would be worse than Comcast, and would probably never get it running until they have spent a year's GDP.

I have slightly more faith in a state government to run one. Not as many people to pay-off around most state capitols as there are around DC.

I would have a lot of faith in a local or city government to get it done. They live right there amongst their customers, typically have to work within a budget, and have a vested interest in doing it right the first time.

Comment Re:more pseudo science (Score 1) 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.

Wacky global warming deniers are not skeptics, they are credulous fools.

Skeptics look at the evidence before making their minds up, and change their minds if new evidence comes to light.

Deniers deny. Disprove one nutty theory and the continue denying with another, often incompatible nutty theory. This sometimes goes around in circles 'till they come back to the first, already disproven, theory.

Regarding collusion in the peer review process:

One of the arguments of "deniers" is that the supposed agreement of all climate scientists is that their funding requires certain conclusions to be drawn, and thus climate scientists are, generally, in lockstep to secure continued funding of their studies. Scare people and get funding. Tell people that climate change isn't the end of the world and start putting out resumes.

Your response is, "Well, there is a peer review process and look, they are 99% in agreement."

They already know 99% of climate scientists are saying the same thing, and keep setting goal posts for the "point of no return," and watching nothing happen. Al Gore certainly didn't help, didn't he say 2009 was the point of no return? Didn't he say hurricanes will be more frequent? Does the sky continue to not fall?

Do you see why that isn't going to sway the denier? Deniers are indeed skeptics, they are just skeptical of the integrity of the people doing the science. That's what y'all have to fix. Continuing to call them ignorant and stupid isn't getting you anywhere.

Comment I think the only way to fix the food stamp problem (Score 2) 1043

... is to do away with the program completely.

First of all, it is flat-out wrong to suggest that one person is not allowed to have an opinion about how another person spends their food stamps. The fact the the stamps come from tax money means EVERY tax payer has paid for the right to have an opinion about it. See also: subsidized health care, and how it makes everyones lifestyle everyones business (I propose all dangerous, injury-causing leisure time activities now be banned for that reason, and I will decide what is "dangerous").

Secondly, I disagree with the notion that just food is cheaper at a grocery store than healthy items, and that it isn't fair to expect poor people to eat rice every day. I am the procurer of provisions in my household of 3, so I have direct experience. "Staples" are refreshed, and used up, every month. To suggest I am being forced to supplement our meals with ten pounds of rice and a bag of potatoes every month is ludicrous, it is just intelligent home economics. Many hours of my free time are also spent in gardening every summer, and tomatoes and onions from that garden are eaten year round after I can it up, an inexpensive technology that has existed in its current form for a couple hundred years, at least.

The only way to fix the problem of "spending their food stamps on steak and lobster and junk food" is just to remove that choice completely. If someone is poor enough for food stamps, then we consult the Official US Government Dietary Needs table for the person at that sex at that age, and they get a box every 2 weeks with exactly the nutritious food they need, at the appropriate calorie level for their age, with enough snack cakes for small dessert every evening. This makes the fiscal conservatives happy... less money is being wasted. This also eliminates the ignorance of a person not knowing which foods are nutritious, and then the government can also even out the production of agricultural products and possibly remove the need for farm subsidies. If the government KNOWS it is going to need X amount of bread each month, then it can more intelligently utilize the nations bread producers. This makes the central-government socialists happy.

Really, it's win/win/win. If the person on the dole still wants a lobster once a month, no one will stop them, they can use their allotment of cigarette money for that week.

We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"