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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Lawrence (Score 1) 234 234

Islam honours all those as "believers".

Umm no, not if they are seen as oppressing Muslims. Then they are enemies. How do you think Mohammed justified going to war against Jewish tribes -- aka people of the book.

Even if they are not oppressing Muslims, but just seen as being too "uppity" they become targets. That's why jizya was prescribed to be collected in a humiliating way.. in the Ottoman Empire, Christians would be slapped and cajoled by a crowd as they lined up to pay their jizya. These are also people of the book.

So no.

Comment Re:Lawrence (Score 1) 234 234

I don't understand why you're calling them heretics. That means someone engaging in heresy. Heresy is a belief or action that is fundamentally opposed to the commonly held beliefs of a religion, taken as legitimate for that religion. For instance, if a Christian were to say "Well, Jesus was not the son of God, I think the Bible really says that he was a regular guy who did so and so with God's help" that is heresy because you are attempting to redefine Christianity.

Calling fundamentalism heretical doesn't really make sense in general.

Comment Re:ISP quasi-monopolies (Score 1) 181 181

Wow I'm surprised we're ranked that highly. I didn't expect that we'd be above France and Germany.

But anyway, with all the gigabit projects going on now it seems like the "more competitive option" has come. Basically it took one company to not play along (Google), then another company to get scared and react (AT&T), and now everybody's jumping in.

Comment Re:Netflix needs to fix this (Score 1) 181 181

That's a great idea, and I'd add a p2p element so the aggregate bandwidth going through interconnections is also reduced. (Simpler than hoping for widespread multicast support.)

If I could donate 5mbps outgoing to Netflix to act as a seed node for others in my area for a reduction in my bill, I'd do that.

Comment Re:BUT I have an "unlimited" connection! (Score 1) 181 181

Why is that the ideal solution? It seems like we're starting to get some traction with plain old competition from Google Fiber, AT&T Gigapower, Time Warner MAXX, Comcast's 2Gbps thing (don't recall the name), etc. We didn't need government owned infrastructure to do that...

And frankly, if the government owned it I'm not sure these types of upgrades would have been any faster. If the reason it's faster is something like "they can do it via eminent domain and bypassing their own rules and regulations" then that's pretty much bullshit.

Comment Re:What an amazing surprise! (Score 1) 181 181

Tell me, how much does it cost to call someone 30, 50, or 100 miles away now? Oh wait, it is $0 a min. All from regulating Ma-Bell and having the markets opened.

No, I think that's a result of competition from the internet/data networks. When Ma Bell was broken up into regional Bells, there were still high long distance fees. And yes I do remember that.

Cell phones with extremely high monthly costs, so high that providing long distance was an "eh why not" for the companies involved, sealed the deal. And they drove down costs by using data networks to carry voice. Packet switching vs dedicated lines made a big difference.

Comment Re:Links to the actual study (Score 1) 181 181

The thing is, they aren't selling you X mbps guaranteed for every end to end connection. That's impossible of course. I'm curious if during this 8pm-10pm window, users can still get their X mbps in aggregate by downloading from many providers in parallel. If so it doesn't sound like a problem, more like a reality of how networks work. If the throttling is based on content, such as movies downloaded from this GTT CDN are throttled but random zip files downloaded from the same servers are going at full speed, that would be bad.

In your gas station analogy, it is running low on gas and each pump can only deliver 5 gallons. Using 2 pumps will let you get what you paid for, so it should be okay.

Comment Re:So this is the dude behind Rhogam? (Score 1) 97 97

When salaries are as high as they are in medicine and in the administrative ranks of charities then I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about "non-profit" vs "for profit." Who cares whether they pay dividends to shareholders or whether they pay out their excess money as 6-7 figure salaries?

Comment Re:Parents should be liable (Score 1) 254 254

It's hilarious that you've deluded yourself into believing that your desperate little attempts at changing the topic

You should reflect more.

Here, have a reality check: unlike you with your pitiable fixation on selective quoting

Selective quoting.. ahh.. the bane of idiots who say one thing, mean something else, stick fervently to it, and pretend that's what they originally said. Oh no, now he quoted me! The bastard!

the literally life-and-death issue of the recent rise in entirely preventable diseases killing people, traceable to the equally the recent impact of antivaxxer lunacy on public health.

You're seriously an idiot. You can't distinguish between what the article is about, what the "whole page" is about, and what an individual thread is about.

No more food for you from me. Toddle off back under your bridge and starve.

Ohhhh burn!

You sound so stupid it's unbelievable. The weirdest part though is how you're pretending that you know me.

But anyway, I'm glad you're not going to "feed" me any more dumb comments. Hopefully.

Oh shit here comes another reply accusing me of quoting you, and changing the topic!

Comment Re:Parents should be liable (Score 1) 254 254


Oh my, do you need a nap? That might explain your nonsensical reply to me.

All of which is why I said almost every other case.

Yes, you did, and that's wrong. That's why I replied to you. Virtually every case has effects that go beyond the kids.

none of your three Ever-So-Significant points are the direct causes of otherwise perfectly preventable deaths.

Oh I get it now. You're an idiot! You should have just said so.

You said "the bad effects of bad parenting stop with the kids." No mention of preventable death. The person you replied to was talking about demonstrable harm to children... again, not preventable death, just harm.

Now why are you pretending that you meant to narrow it from demonstrable harm to preventable death? Do you think that helps your argument? If you restrict the type of bad parenting we're talking about to "things that kill" then you're getting ludicrously incorrect on two fronts instead of one.

First of all, bad parenting that kills children is far more likely to have effects that go beyond the immediate death of the child. So rather than "almost every other case" not having further effects, it is "almost every other case has tremendous effects on others." I mean you really can't get more wrong that you are now with your historical revision.

Secondly, if we're talking about actual death instead of just harm or "bad effects" then anti-vaxxers pretty much drop off the map. Dying from easily preventable disease is very low on the list of stuff that kills kids. First they have to get the disease, which is still rare. Then they have die from the disease, which is also rare. Even in our rather crazy anti-vaxxer country, how many kids from that big measles outbreak in Disneyland? In the meantime, how many have died from, say, homicide -- which, in children, is often related to bad parenting?

Since you seem to need this spelled out too, we weren't discussing people who can't get vaccinated, we were discussing people who can get vaccinated but who are idiotic enough to refuse.

This is just sad.

You said the problem is little sacks of disease walking around. And I agree.

But you seem to not understand that the reason they aren't vaccinated doesn't actually make a difference in terms of their being out there walking around potentially spreading disease.

You are a demonstrated idiot, so let me spell it out a little more. It doesn't matter if it's a religious objection, an allergy, or a vaccine that just didn't work for that person -- the person is still a little sack of disease walking around, and that's a problem.

Now perhaps what you meant was the moral problem of people who intentionally endanger others. But that's not what you said. Do try to keep up with your own posts.

Got any other nits to pick

I enjoy putting people in their place when they talk a bunch of nonsense while trying to sound clever. So if you want to put forward another stupid comment, I'll be happy to reply!

or would you like to try staying vaguely on-topic for once, instead of these pathetic attempts at derailing?

I don't get it, is this some type of ironic humor? My post wasn't off topic, but attempting to derail the conversation by claiming that I derail conversations.. it's kind of funny, but also not funny. I think it's probably just you being an idiot again.

Comment Re:Parents should be liable (Score 1) 254 254

In almost every other case, the bad effects of bad parenting stop with the kids.

Are you kidding???

1. Badly parented kids can become bad parents themselves, affecting the next generation
2. Your badly parented kids may be in my kid's classroom, seeking negative attention
3. Speaking specifically of health concerns that GP brought up, your badly parented kid who is exposed to second hand smoke makes my health insurance premiums go up

There's very little you do that doesn't affect other people.

But in this case, their precious little walking sacks of infection can toddle off outside of home septic home and spread their diseases far and wide.

And if you don't think that's a problem that needs solving, you don't think at all.

Hmm so how do you propose solving the problem of kids who can't get vaccinated because they are allergic, or have some immunologic disorder?

Are they somehow less of a problem, even though they are also little walking sacks of infection who can spread their diseases far and wide?

Comment Re:Parents should be liable (Score 1) 254 254

For someone who hates abstract arguments, you didn't waste any time abstracting the issue to "children suffering and dying."

And come on.. be honest.. aren't you perfectly fine with innocent children suffering and dying? I think you must be, given that you're wasting your time here on slashdot instead of saving innocent children.

Comment Re:Parents should be liable (Score 1) 254 254

Vaccines aren't 100% effective, otherwise you're right that it wouldn't be an issue.

There are also people who can't use vaccines due to allergies, and the idea is they are protected via "herd immunity" -- basically if enough people are vaccinated, then disease can't get a foothold and spreading it is much harder.

I'm not sure how I feel about that case, because to me if you're allowing people to go to public school without vaccination because they are allergic, then you're admitting it's not a safety issue to have some percentage of unvaccinated people.

I think people should be able to choose to not vaccinate voluntarily, and there should be a lottery system for which unvaccinated kids get into schools.

Comment Re:Rich school for rich kids (Score 1) 234 234

A rising tide does not lift all boats equally.

It doesn't have to be equal.

The rich can only get richer if the poor get poorer.

A simple example shows you're wrong. When Bill Gates makes another buck on his stock market portfolio, how does the poorest homeless man in India, who owns nothing, has no family, and is 2 days away from starving to death, get POORER? He can't possibly get poorer.

It's the nature of limited resources.

Can you explain how your theory relates to air, which is a limited resource? Do rich people breathing somehow prevent poor people from breathing?

Disparity in wealth is a highest of us learning to marginalize the lowest of us.

Maybe sometimes, but not always. Sometimes it's because the rich got richer all on their own, like if someone invents a new use for something. That doesn't deprive others of anything, it just enriches everyone (but not equally... the guy who invented profits the most, and/or his employer).

Comment Re:A few things here... (Score 1) 272 272

That's called "house poor" -- which is different than just "poor."

You can't complain about not having money just because you spend a lot of money. For example surely you'd laugh if I said I'm poor because my 10000 sqft house, maid, gardener, and two mistresses take up so much of my income that I have very little left over. I'm barely making it!

Similarly, if you live in a high cost area, you don't get to complain about that cost. There's a reason for that cost. You are buying access to an area that lots of people want access to. Your *being there* is what you get for your money. That atmosphere. The connections. The beautiful people and scenery. The actual possibility of giving elevator pitches for your startup. Randomly seeing celebrities having coffee or whatever. You live in the kind of place that other people travel to for tourism because they think it's so great, and you get to live there.

So sick of these whiners who have to "deal" with the problem of living in a popular place.

"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."