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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:"forced" (Score 1) 600

by tbannist (#49545051) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

The government has no business forcing people to get any medical treatment or discriminating against those who do not.

Why? Why should you be allowed to endanger the health of your fellow citizens and their families?

Reasonable precautions to prevent epidemics seems like "promoting the general welfare" which is the very foundation of government.

Comment: Re:"forced" (Score 1) 600

by tbannist (#49540541) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

If they wanted to mitigate the risk of disease the medical exception would not be in there. They are just as dangerous if not more so (often it's compromised immune system as the medical reason so they pick up things easily). This bill is coercion by the state for parents to comply, it has no apparent medical effect if it leaves one class of unvaccinated children in school but not others.

Just like a $5 dollar discount coupon has no effect, since I still have to pay the rest of the bill?

The rate of medical exemptions is reasonable stable and small, and as long as the rate of people who had special exemptions was similarly low it was an acceptable risk, however, thanks to vaccine paranoia and the frauds who peddle it, the rate of unvaccinated children with special exemptions has rise dramatically, and no longer falls into "acceptable risk". So the exemptions are going away, and the parents of these children will have to find a different way to be ignorant and dangerous.

Comment: Re:Bad Example, Maybe (Score 3, Informative) 600

by tbannist (#49537877) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California
You have to be very careful with Penn and Teller, they have a strong libertarian bent and they seem to frequently fail when researching issues that involve their politics. I wouldn't trust them on issues like second hand smoke that they are likely to view as "government interference". It tends to make them derp out and present a weak one-sided case as if there were no valid counter-arguments. Personally, I stopped watching "Bullshit" after a few too many political shows where they left me disappointed with their half-assed, one-sided, "facts".

Comment: Re:Can't say as I blame them. (Score 1) 229

By spending $5 on something, you would be telling Valve that you're a paying customer and not a freeloader who's actively working to destroy their system?

However, with your rant you are telling me that you're a paranoid drama queen.

But I may be biased, because this will cost me nothing because I have already paid more than $5 to buy some cheap games during the summer and winter sales. I would imagine that for the vast majority of Steam's customers it will also cost them nothing because they are actually customers and have spent some money with Steam at some point in the past. You represent a corner case, a rare exception, a freeloader who legitimately (by your claim) uses Steam's services without ever paying Valve anything.

I'm telling Valve that I'm willing to pay additional money for a service that was supposed to already have been paid for with my purchase of the initial game.

I've seen this claim before (probably from you), but I'm don't know what game you bought that you think entitles you to permanent and unlimited access to all the services of Steam in perpetuity.

Comment: Re:there's a strange bias on slashdot (Score 1) 192

by tbannist (#49496377) Attached to: Microsoft's Role As Accuser In the Antitrust Suit Against Google

I don't think you understand as much as you think you do.

For one the post you replied to was about what Microsoft would have done if it had been "as evil" as Google. Re-read it.

On the topic of your other claim, Microst didn't not just provide "their web browser as a default with their OS". That's just part of one of the tricks that they played. They provided Internet Explorer for the sole purpose of preventing and delaying the development of web-based alternatives to Windows and Office. They licensed Internet Explorer (guaranteeing Spyglass a percentage of every copy sold) and provided it for free to cut off Netscape's money supply (screwing Spyglass over as well in the process). Mind you, Netscape wasn't even a competitor of Microsoft's until it made the deal with Spyglass. Microsoft was scared of the power of the Internet and the Web and purposely engaged in a campaign to sabotage the development of software that was operating system independent and subvert the internet, if they could.

They also forced manufacturers to sign deals where if they wanted to be able to sell any computers with Windows on them, they had to agree to ship them with Internet Explorer and only Internet Explorer.

Furthermore, they then tied Internet Explorer into the operating system and spread it's code across other system DLLs so it couldn't be removed easily without breaking Windows. They made it load on boot so it would load faster then competitors, and used undocumented APIs that were faster than the standard ones to give themselves an advantage. When competitors tried to use those same undocumented APIs, Microsoft would introduce changes to sabotage their competitor's products while simultaneously updates for IE that worked around the newly introduced bugs.

However, once Netscape had been destroyed and the threat of "operating system-less software" was gone, Microsoft essentially dropped Internet Explorer into a deep dark hole. They barely touched it for almost 9 years, which just goes to show that it was all about destroying a potential threat to the monopoly. Sure when you say they gave something away for free it doesn't sound bad, but it is actually an anti-competitive practice called flooding the market and it is evil and illegal when you have a dominant position in one market and use that tactic to extend your dominance into another area.

I understand that some people are too short sighted, too stupid, or too libertarian to understand why this was important, but this is just one of many campaigns of reckless destruction that Microsoft has engaged in to protect their cash cows.

Comment: Re:Remember M$'s role on SCO? (Score 1) 192

by tbannist (#49495173) Attached to: Microsoft's Role As Accuser In the Antitrust Suit Against Google

This whole "Microsoft is evil and Google isn't" is really pretty childish.

You know, it could be childish and true... Microsoft has a long and sordid history of going far beyond what "*every* business does" to compete. Whether or not they're evil, they have proven over and over again that they can't be trusted.

Comment: Re:Reason: for corporations, by corporations (Score 1) 489

by tbannist (#49444335) Attached to: Reason: How To Break the Internet (in a Bad Way)

Do tell me why, then, an Information Service was even defined if nothing was supposed to be classified under it.

Who says there would be nothing classified under Title 1? As far as I understand we're talking about reclassifying internet connections as Title 2, everything else that ISPs do (like email service, web hosting, etc.) would remain Title 1.

Comment: Re:Reason: for corporations, by corporations (Score 2) 489

by tbannist (#49444265) Attached to: Reason: How To Break the Internet (in a Bad Way)

Then what do you do when, despite having the monopoly, they don't provide universal coverage and provide universally lousy service, such that a super-majority of people in the district are willing to vote to have their taxes increased to set up some competition?

Naturally, you become a libertarian and claim that everyone who disagrees with you is a lazy parasite.

Comment: Re: Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score 2) 653

by tbannist (#49413897) Attached to: Carly Fiorina Calls Apple's Tim Cook a 'Hypocrite' On Gay Rights

Then perhaps the right path to that is to get the benefits divorced from what many believe to be a religious institution.

That's a great idea, let the stupid decide what the laws should be. Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's a legal institution. It's a contract and it always has been. The religious ceremony literally means nothing legally. You can be married without a ceremony and you can be not married despite having the ceremony. The ceremony is the fluff, the marriage certificate you sign during (or after) the ceremony is the actual important part. Marriage is civil law.

Furthermore, in America marriage has never been solely the province of religion, and can never be so. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is the very first amendment of your constitution. If marriage is a religious institution then government has no business making any laws about it. So anyone who believes that marriage is a religious institution and thus gays shouldn't be allowed to get married is wrong, because either it's not religious and the government has no obligation to bow to the views of some Christians or it is and the government is legally prohibited from doing so by it's own constitution.

Additionally, please note that some churches are perfectly happy to marry gay couples and preventing them from doing would be an actual infringement on their religious liberties unlike the bullshit argument that not allowing you to prevent a gay couple from getting married is somehow restricting your liberty.

Comment: Re: Saudi Arabia, etc. (Score 1) 653

by tbannist (#49413761) Attached to: Carly Fiorina Calls Apple's Tim Cook a 'Hypocrite' On Gay Rights

jcr has a point. If [Mississippi] is as racist as as [South Africa], then how many have been killed?

This whole [Mississippi] thing has been noting but bullying on the left's part. "[Civil Rights]" [are] nothing more than a ploy to force acceptance on people who have serious religious object to [blacks] and supporting such [people]. If this were not the case why is it that people who believed that a "we don't need a piece of paper to prove we're married." All of a sudden, that piece of paper is so important because [mixed race couples] are the ones with traditional views of marriage.

I'm done with Democrats and the left. A bunch of hypocrites. And the right isn't much better.

I knew I'd seen your argument before. People before you believed that blacks didn't need to be married because they weren't really people, and then they opposed mixed race marriages because black and whites shouldn't mix that way. Most likely, 20 years from now you will vehemently deny that you were ever this homophobic.

The price one pays for pursuing any profession, or calling, is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side. -- James Baldwin