Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Wow, that is fiction. (Score 3, Insightful) 191

by tj2 (#47914207) Attached to: Sci-Fi Authors and Scientists Predict an Optimistic Future

"If the government has to decide what to fund and what not to fund, they are going to get their ideas and decisions mostly from the Bible rather than anything remotely reasonable."

We need the populace to elect different folks before the dream of the former would be true.

You're close. It should read "If the government has to decide what to fund and what not to fund, they are going to get their ideas and decisions entirely from the people who bought them with campaign contributions and bribes, and will never vote to fund anything they are told by their owners not to."

Comment: Re:I used to be an engineer. I worked for Motorola (Score 2) 370

by tj2 (#47293053) Attached to: Age Discrimination In the Tech Industry

When I turned 42...

Now I am a dentist

How is this remotely plausible? How the heck this get moderated insightful?

How is it not plausible? Lots of people go back to school, and if he's smart with his money he could afford to take the time to become a dentist. It's not like medical school has a defined cutoff age for admissions. Yeah, he's on the older end of the scale, but so what?

+ - Skip "Ender's Game" because of Card's anti-gay views? 1

Submitted by tj2
tj2 (54604) writes "Like many, I was a big fan of Orson Scott Card's Ender series, and was often struck by the empathic characters in the books. It was very disappointing to find that his real-world views displayed a marked lack of said empathy when gay rights was the subject. Now it appears that there's a campaign to boycott the movie version of Ender's Game due to those views. What does the Slashdot community think? Should a movie (or book, or whatever) be judged separately from its author? Or is it right to boycott a film as a way to demonstrate that bigoted (in my opinion) attitudes can have financial consequences?"

Comment: Re:Completely agree with this... (Score 0, Troll) 245

by tj2 (#42967629) Attached to: Got a Cell Phone Booster? FCC Says You Have To Turn It Off

Yes, because God forbid the people at the games actually, you know, watch the games instead of surfing the web, tweeting inane opinions or Facebooking their opinions of the refs. And "tragedy"? Really? If the officials at these stadia have emergency plans for disasters that depend on all the fans having cell phone access, they ought to be flogged. We've had major sporting events for a *whole* lot longer than we've had cell phones.

Disclaimer: I've worked in wireless since the early days of cellular, and I was a field tech at Cellular One in Seattle back when turning up the 20th tower in the Seattle MSA was a big deal for us. So I understand that what you are saying is correct technically, but I'm far from convinced that this is a burning issue that the FCC needs to address. I'm still further from convinced that this isn't simply more kowtowing to the wireless carriers to allow them Yet Another Revenue Stream for which they do nothing.

And I have a repeater at my house. I'm in a semi-rural area, and the signal strength at my house flat-out sucks. My little signal repeater puts out at most 1W, and my nearest neighbor is about 200 yards away. I don't think I'm likely to cause significant interference to anyone, but it improves the usability of my cell phone dramatically.

Comment: Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (Score 1) 1591

by tj2 (#42604459) Attached to: New York Passes Landmark Gun Law

And actually every M14 except for the National Match is capable of full auto fire. Some of the issued rifles did not have the selector switch installed, and that is the only thing that limited it to semi-auto operation.

Well, technically all semi-automatics are *capable* of fully automatic operation (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) with appropriate mods. Hell, I've even seen old plans in a Guns and Ammo magazine of somebody's idea in the late 1800's to make a lever-action rifle into either a semi-auto or automatic rifle. Looked unwieldy as hell, but still.

Having said that, I didn't realize that M-14's were initially designed to be selective fire between semi-auto and full auto. You learn something new every day. :-)

Comment: Re:Seems perfectly reasonable (Score 1) 1591

by tj2 (#42603321) Attached to: New York Passes Landmark Gun Law

I'm pretty sure he meant M-14. The M-14 is a semi-automatic .30 caliber rifle, not fully automatic by default except for specialized models. I shot one regularly when I was in the Navy.

I've always thought the M-14 with a synthetic stock was a fine weapon. They're accurate, rugged and have considerably more power that any 5.56mm round. You could use an M-14 as a tent peg and then run over it with a truck and it would still work.

Comment: Re:Where is the bat-fuzz??? (Score 2) 51

by tj2 (#42195285) Attached to: Original Batmobile To Be Auctioned For the First Time Ever

I saw the "flocked" car in a parade when I was a kid, and actually got to touch it after the parade when they were getting ready to transport it to its next destination. I'm not sure who brought it out, but the guy told me that they had originally painted it black but the glossy finish made it very difficult to film correctly due to reflections, flashes, etc. Therefore, the whole car was covered with a sort of velvet material. Very cool,but I'm sure it was a pain to take care of, and I imagine it wouldn't have handled rain/snow/whatever very well. :-)

Comment: Re:I for one have new hope... (Score 2) 186

by tj2 (#39292153) Attached to: Rep. Darrell Issa Requests Public Comments On ACTA

Okay, so is it okay to say "We pay less for blacks, Jews and other undesirables"? Answer the question.

And if health care for employees is a scam, what else fits in your definition? Food safety laws? Child labor laws? Any regulation at all? Or is it just that smart/rich/connected people "deserve" health care, and poor/uneducated/unlucky people should suffer and die if they "choose" to get sick? How is it a scam?

I don't know you, but your posts seem to indicate that you like or approve of the idea that health is reserved to those who can afford it, and that we as a society have no interest in trying to insure that our citizens have access to basic health care. I believe that everyone should have access to such basic items as prescriptions, emergency care (already in place in the U.S.), necessary continuing care like physical therapy and chemotherapy, and access to transplant lists, etc. Reconstructive surgery for accident/burn victims, or those scarred by disease. And of course preventative care. Lack of free preventative care is the #1 cause of rising health care costs. It's like code: the earlier you find and fix the problem, the less it costs.

Botox, breast implants (excepting cases like mastectomies), other cosmetic items - buy it yourself if you want it that badly. Not greatly enthused by lap-band and other bariatric costs, but will to pay them if it means less medical costs down the road. Some things like gender reassignment surgery are harder to call: one the one hand, it seems elective, on the other I can't imagine someone without a serious psychological need for it ever pursuing such a radical option. In any event, it's rare enough that the costs disappear into the noise.

Comment: Re:I for one have new hope... (Score 1) 186

by tj2 (#39291511) Attached to: Rep. Darrell Issa Requests Public Comments On ACTA

I still don't get this. The employer offered health plan is basically an incentive to work somewhere. Not liking your work health plan is like not liking your salary. If you want a better healthplan work somewhere else.

If they have a religious objection to offering health care to Jews, black people and liberals (however they choose to define them), you still okay with it? I mean hey, they can always choose to work somewhere else, right?

Being part of a free society under democratically elected government (another argument, not to digress) means having to play by the same rules as everyone else. You don't get a free pass just by waving a and saying you want to opt out. No one ever said the employees have to take them up on it, and I would assume the truly devout practitioners of would not, but they have to cover it like everyone else.

Note: I strongly suspect, based on available evidence, that "truly devout" covers a single-digit percentage of the congregation for most religions in America. I cite the fact that the average Catholic family size in the U.S. is 2.6 people, the same as the overall average. You can claim a lot of things, but claiming a organization called the National Catholic Reporter is biased against Catholics seems to be a stretch to me. :-)

Obviously this isn't strictly children, but overall family size. But if you are assuming devoutness, we have to assume no or few divorced parents, and statistically speaking few widows/widowers. I'm not seeing the 5-7 children more normal in Catholic societies outside the U.S. So unless we're drastically less fertile than average, it looks like birth control is pretty widely used by Catholics. Mainstream Protestants are even more relaxed about birth control. Evangelicals are all over the map, so it's hard to characterize their views briefly.

Comment: Re:I for one have new hope... (Score 4, Informative) 186

by tj2 (#39288659) Attached to: Rep. Darrell Issa Requests Public Comments On ACTA

Don't take this wrong, but you're a fool.

"Minority", in this case, refers to the fact that she was a witness for the Democratics, the minority part. It has nothing to do with her ethnicity. Try reading the actual article next time. Feel free to ask if the big words confuse you. If all else fails, try looking at a picture of Sandra Fluke and telling us all how you came to the amazing conclusion that she's black. Really, I'd like to know.

Re: expert witness. Do you consider a random group of *male* religious figures more expert in the area of health care than someone who actually has experience using contraception? I'm curious as to why you're not opposed to their presence at the hearing. Also, I'm pretty sure that anyone affected by a proposed law does (or should) have standing to testify as to how it would affect them.

Finally, those religious organizations don't seem to have a problem with paying for Viagra prescriptions, which they've been doing for a number of years. I have no proof, but I very strongly suspect that few if any of the recipients of that particular drug only use it when they are having a sexual experience strictly for procreative purposes.

Despite their efforts at re-framing this as a matter of religious persecution, it's health care. We don't allow people to have juveniles handle rattlesnakes (even if their parent's religion says it's important), and it's okay (or mandatory) to provide medical care to badly injured kids despite Mom & Dad's belief that a little prayer will fix that arterial bleeding right up, so religious belief does not trump the law. The legislation *never* said that a religious organization had to provide it to their members, but had to make it available to their employees. Or do you believe that every employee of the Catholic health services (650+ hospitals) is a member in good standing of the Catholic church?

Memory fault -- brain fried