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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Quite the poker player (Score 1) 285

by tsqr (#48368283) Attached to: U.S. and China Make Landmark Climate Deal

(Today the USA emits about 14 tons per person, compared to China's 7 tons.)

So yeah, you're right, that is some powerful negotiation right there as China is making a much bigger sacrifice...

Are you sure tons per capita is the appropriate metric? Stats from 2010: Trinidad and Tobago (38 tons per capita), Aruba (22.8), Luxembourg (21.4). AGW evil-doers, or bit players in the greater scheme of things? And no, I'm not proposing that the USA is a bit player.

China has a population 4.3x greater than the USA, in a land area slightly smaller (3.7 million sq mi vs 3.8 million sq. mi). Looking at tons of carbon per square mile, China is currently emitting carbon at over twice the rate of the USA.

Comment: Re:Ted Cruz is Already Attacking Net Neutrality (Score 1) 706

by tsqr (#48367785) Attached to: President Obama Backs Regulation of Broadband As a Utility

The fact that liberals finally caved and accepted it as a compromise solution since they are never going to get socialized medicine in this country doesn't mean conservatives get to disown their own plan.

Caved? To whom?? Are you talking about special considerations given to Democratic legislators and labor unions? Passed by reconciliation without a trace of Republican support != compromise.

Comment: Re:Ted Cruz is Already Attacking Net Neutrality (Score 1) 706

by tsqr (#48354813) Attached to: President Obama Backs Regulation of Broadband As a Utility

You guys keep calling it the conservative approach... but it was born from liberals, and implemented by liberals every single time. Never was there a conservative government that did it.

OH WAIT! I get it

OH WAIT! No you don't. The Heritage Foundation is not a government, and has never implemented any legislation. "Born from liberals" means "legislation written by Democrats". "Implemented by liberals" means "passed by reconciliation without a trace of Republican support."

Comment: Re: Abrupt, but like 100 years abrupt? (Score 1) 132

by tsqr (#48283395) Attached to: New Study Shows Three Abrupt Pulses of CO2 During Last Deglaciation

There is plenty of other evidence supporting this conclusion - it is hardly just his "bombing" policies

Sure. And people wishing to paint him as a leftist can convince themselves they see evidence in support of that, as well; see, for example, his stance on immigration reform and statements regarding the Treyvon Martin and Ferguson "situations".

Personally, I don't see him as a "leftist" or as a "righty"; he seems to lack the intestinal fortitude for either. I see him as more of an old-school political opportunist with a defective moral compass and a spine too week to stand up for what he claims to believe in, whatever that might be (see his evolution from "fierce advocate for gay rights" to "God's in the mix" to ... well, it's not too clear where he stands on the issue right now).

Comment: Re: Abrupt, but like 100 years abrupt? (Score 1) 132

by tsqr (#48280661) Attached to: New Study Shows Three Abrupt Pulses of CO2 During Last Deglaciation

Well, given that Obama is a centre-rightist I can't see that you have demonstrated any problem with the premise at all.

The problem with the premise is that it's based on the tried-and-true No True Scotsman logical fallacy, as in "no true leftie would bomb brown people." Obama may indeed be a center-rightist, but only someone preoccupied with ideological purity would reach that conclusion merely by observing his predilection for bombing brown people.

Comment: Re:um, BIG difference omitted... (Score 1) 163

by tsqr (#48223033) Attached to: How To Beat Online Price Discrimination

He didn't say he hated anyone; he said he had experience with being discriminated against based on appearance-based assumptions. You seem to be suggesting that a moderately successful person should be OK with being gouged. Pretty screwed up, if you see a difference between "he looks rich, let's rip him off (he can probably afford it)" and "he looks poor, let's spit on him (he's probably used to it)."

Comment: Re:1..2..3 before SJW (Score 0) 786

by tsqr (#48198715) Attached to: NPR: '80s Ads Are Responsible For the Lack of Women Coders

In before SJW brigade comes in demanding everyone involved apologized.

wow, you anti-SJW people really got your knickers in a bunch don't you. Leave it to America to came up with stirring anger against social justice, and use it pro-actively as a straw-man in any debate.

Hmm. That seemed shallow and not well-thought-out. The common usage of "SJW" is pejorative by definition. From Urban Dictionary:

"SJW: Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation."

Comment: Re:Much as I despise trolls (Score 1) 489

by tsqr (#48190973) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

Not according to the Supreme Court

Do you honestly, truly believe that I care what those authoritarians think? There is no such single tribunal, and they are not always correct, and have been wrong many times (like with the example you just cited, thanks).

Thank you for the shining example of rationality. You are surely an exemplar member of civilized society; the polar opposite of a barbarian.

Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically.

Working...