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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Bad stuff happens in war (Score 0) 529

Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you.

It's easy for leftist SJWs to rant against Israel and whitewash the Palestinian cause, but sometimes they accidentally encounter reality. I'm thinking of those college girls who went over to volunteer and demonstrate with Palestinians, and ended up getting sidelined, generally held in contempt, and (yes) raped by adherents of that religion of peace and tolerance. If you're a Jew, you get an extra helping of hate from Palestinian terrorists, but it turns out that they have plenty of general malfeasance to go around. So yes, I'll take the society that's actually trying to move ahead with a liberal (small "L") culture and build chips for Intel over the stabbers and head hackers shouting "Allahu Akbar".

Comment Bad stuff happens in war (Score 0, Flamebait) 529

The moral picture is still asymmetrical -- Israel is fighting an existential war of self defense, whereas the Palestinians are fighting to murder and drive out the Jews, and institute a stone age theocracy in place of the Middle East's only democracy. If a few IDF soldiers went unhinged and committed murder (for which I'd expect them to be prosecuted by Israel), that's still both qualitatively and quantitatively different from the acts of murder by Palestinians against Jewish civilians. Palestinian suicide bombers who kill civilians achieve a sort of sainthood in Palestinian society, whereas Israeli soldiers (and orthodox zealots) who go off the reservation make (most) everybody in Israeli society angry, because in their personal acts of revenge they bring dishonor on their country's war effort.

Bracing myself for onslaught of angry leftists, and reflecting on how lucky we are in a society where free speech has been the rule for centuries to be able to blow steam out our ears and argue with each other seven ways to Sunday, without it really occurring to us to shoot and stab one another, at least for the most part (yeah yeah, Slashdot is USA centric).

Comment Re:"nonconsensual sex or touching" (Score 1) 399

A much more likely explanation: professionals and graduates are simply exposed to less risk (e.g. they spend more time studying, away from parties and bars).

That was my first thought too, and I agree with the point you're making. However, if the question being asked is "have you ever in your life..." then we're also asking about those people's undergraduate experiences. I'm not sure that you could successfully argue that the vast majority of sorority/fraternity crowd doesn't go on to graduate.

Comment Re:"nonconsensual sex or touching" (Score 2) 399

Oddly enough, graduates and professionals report WAY lower rates. So, that means the increase in rape/non-consentual penetration/sexual touching by force is a recent event.

Or else there is a lot of wrong self reporting in these studies. It could be that students of previous years took responsibility for their own boozing and sleeping around without hyperanalyzing and reevaluating it later in light of 2015 feminist attitudes. Not to say that date rape isn't real, just that drunken sleeping around is sometimes something that both people walk into intentionally, and there is a lot of immaturity and unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own behavior out there, particularly when "blame the male" is a convenient cop out.

OK, I'm done ranting now. Disclosure: I didn't drink in college, and I hope my own kids stay far from that whole crowd.

Comment Re:Can you liberals please wake the fuck up? (Score 1) 965

So here's a different viewpoint. Speaking as an atheist, I am so far removed from all the religious groups that they are indistinguishably worshiping the same absurd stone-age fantasy.

I hate to interrupt your enjoyable session of patting yourself on the back, but have to point out that your attitude is not scientific. If you take a measurement and round it unnecessarily, you are throwing away part of your data. Just enjoying the look of the nice round numbers may be good for your personal psychological well being, I suppose.

Comment Re:Why (Score 1) 965

Your knee-jerk liberal equivocating is as wrong as it is boring. In the USA you are very unlikely to encounter violence over strongly atheistic speech. You will get a vigorous response of (take a wild guess...) more speech -- in Texas I admit you may be yelled at, you may have some ladies tearfully tell you they'll pray for you, you may have a greasy haired evangelist do his best to save your soul, etc. However, you will not be shot or tased.

See, you're falling into a typical liberal fallacy -- "any speech that makes someone mad is hate speech and is the same thing as violence". In fact, so called hate speech that leads to more speech back and forth is an inescapable part of a healthy and diverse society.

Comment Re:Why (Score 2) 965

So the real question is, who are these people making decisions, and why did they make those decisions? It's odd that you don't seem to recognize that.

"There is no god." "Mohammed was a false prophet." Either of those statements is sufficient for militant Islam to want to chop off my head, as I said either sooner or later as they see their way clear. It is the job of civilized governments to constrain and box in militant Islam so it can't expand and chop off heads and blow people up in any wider of a sphere than necessary. It is distinctly NOT the job of civilized governments to censor our lovable albeit loud mouthed atheists to make the Muslims happy.

Consequently, the question of why a particular militant Islamic group goes murder-crazy at a particular moment may in some cases be purely academic and moot for policy purposes.

Comment Re:Why (Score 1) 965

Except, of course that there has been surveys done of French Moslems (by the Pew Research Institute if memory serves well), that tend to prove they are the least radicalized and best integrated of all European Moslem communities. You really have no idea what you are talking about, so please just STFU.

After rampant reports of burned cars and attacks on Jews in Paris, I'd really hate to see what poorly integrated Muslim populations looked like.

Comment Re:Why (Score 3, Insightful) 965

France participated in Operation Desert Storm aka "Operation_Daguet", which is probably reason enough for any jihadist. More recently with the large influx of North African Muslims there's been conflict with France's largely atheistic culture. See the Charlie Hebdo incident -- militant Islam lacks anything resembling either a sense of humor or respect for human rights.

To the point, militant Islam really, really wants to be in charge, which makes pretty much everyone in the world either an immediate target or a future target. It's odd that you don't seem to recognize that.

Comment Political cynicism at its finest (Score 1) 369

The project has already been stalled and deprioritised due to low oil prices, so Obama's advisers calculated that the economic pain of rejecting it now won't cause them too much trouble. They don't have to pretend to be still reviewing it while actually simply stonewalling it until it dies. A benefit is that they get to preach about the environment, even as oil gets transported by rail and truck instead, which of course generates a lot more carbon. But hey, at least Berkshire Hathaway owns the rail lines and is an ally of the Democrats.

Fortunately, Obama is a lame duck, and his corrupt, incompetent, and generally malfeasant administration will soon be ejected from DC.

Comment Obvious steps we can take as a society (Score 1) 173

There are several ways we can use technology to promote effective climate action:

First, we need to put an immediate stop to the UAH and RSS satellite measurements of surface temperature, or at least publication of the results. None of our models is able to explain why the temperatures haven't continued to rise as precipitously as we expected after the 90's. The pause is an embarrassment. Ergo, the pause doesn't exist, and we don't want to hear any more about it. The science is settled, OK?

Second, we need to deal once and for all with this weird thing called "the internet", where people apparently are free to say things that we disagree with. A good start would be criminal and civil lawsuits against individuals who express skepticism of our climate agenda. This is already underway, as Michael Mann is suing Mark Steyn for his aspersions about the hockey stick. And others have proposed using the RICO laws to shut down other speech that doesn't toe the line. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, if you please. We are all very serious scientists and public servants, and it's the other side who are corrupted by dirty money.

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.

Working...