Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Who needs facts? Innuendo is so much more fun. (Score 1) 328

But exactly how much of an insane conspiracy theory is this? If you've followed his treatment at all it doesn't take some nut-job to postulate his treatment has nothing to do with the alleged crimes he's accused of. I can grant not buying into a conspiracy theory because there's no direct supporting evidence. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Here we have an individual who's accused of rape by a woman who ran a blog, the meat of which was a guide to using the legal system to get back at your ex lovers, and another woman accusing him of rape bought him breakfast the morning after the alleged incident. So while I can provide no definitive evidence of a conspiracy theory, I ask if anyone can provide an explanation as to why they're trying so hard to prosecute these case when the only evidence in question is the accusers word, the former of which has a tremendous credibility problem, and the latter of which doesn't jive well with the established facts.

Comment Re:More harm to others? Really? (Score 1) 706

You're absolutely right that addiction is fuelled by something more deeply seeded than a lack of willpower, and I can agree that its fair to characterise addiction as a mental illness. It is a bit unfair that society regards physical illness with pity and mental illness with disdain.

With mental illnesses, as with all diseases it is up to the individual what they're going to do about it. I would gladly stand by a loved one struggling with an addiction so long as they were actively perusing treatment for such. The same for a loved one struggling with mental illness. But if the person abandons their attempts to get better I won't and I think no one should stand by their side and say "I understand. Its okay."

My attitude isn't one of callous disregard. There's a difference between someone who says "I'm sick, I have an addiction, will you please stand by me while I try to get better?" and someone who says "I'm sick, will you please stand by me because whatever I do isn't my fault." I've seen examples of both, and I've infinite patience for the former and absolutely none for the latter.

Comment Re:More harm to others? Really? (Score 1) 706

As someone who has lived with a family of alcoholics, I have to disagree with your characterisation of alcoholism. Calling it a disease has always seemed to me to be a victimisation ploy (look, its not my fault everyone, I'm just sick).

That said, I'm also of the opinion that alcohol itself is generally not the problem. Every alcoholic I've ever know has had a tremendously addictive personality, alcohol just happened to be the manifestation. This is even more apparent if you look at people in AA. Typically, they're no less addicted, they've just refocused their addiction to something less destructive.

Comment Re:States can't legislate to the federal governmen (Score 2, Interesting) 601

In the example you gave Mythonia would then have laws on its book that conflict with Federal law and hence would be invalid. In the case of what the Senator is proposing, there are no specific Federal laws they would be going against. Congress passed bills creating the DHS and TSA, but no law has been specifically passed defining their authority nor defining how they're to execute their charter. So while you're quite right that you cannot pre-empt federal law by state legislation if this theoretically got all the way to SCOTUS the TSA would likely be required to point to exactly what Federal law they were claiming had supremacy.

Comment Re:Particular selection is more irresponsible (Score 1) 187

The agenda seems to be exposing corruption, something a lack of transparency has a big role in promoting. As much of a fan as I am of Wikileaks, Anonymous on most days, there are legitimate reasons to keep certain pieces of information from the public. Wikileaks seams to have a good understanding of this idea, and it seems like at least some members of Anonymous may be exercising the same kind of discretion.

As an interesting aside, at least in the US, the only information that actually should be hidden falls under 'Classified'. The DoD has eight different reasons they can call information classified, which cover every legitimate use case for keeping information from the public. If someone says it's classified, there's probably a good reason you shouldn't know, if someone says it's a "State Secret", they're trying to hide something embarrassing or illegal.

Comment Re:A selfish man who had others die for him. (Score 3, Insightful) 718

A selfish man who had others die for him

That's kind of a trite and glib statement, and one we've heard a lot. When I was in the military I heard people say quite often "If Osama thinks strapping a bomb to your chest to kill infidels is such a good idea, why doesn't he do it?" The answer to that is simply, the same reason George W. Bush didn't grab an M-16 and head to Fallujah.

Comment Re:Great (Score 1) 149

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

The above link suggest 54% of the federal budget is military. Haven't done a lot of due diligence so I don't know how accurate their estimate is but based on a quick glance of the US Military budget wiki, the federal military budget is definitely more than 20%, and it's most likely between the two. You can decide for yourself where you think it falls.

Comment Re:What's with this app horsedookie? (Score 2, Insightful) 225

I don't think that such is accidental, it's marketing. As we all know, there are legitimate reasons to shape traffic, i.e. VOIP is far more sensitive to latency that FTP. By calling everything an application they're hoping to confuse the legitimate traffic shaping described above with the crap that they're describing here. Technocrats aren't likely to fall for it but it will be very useful in confusing those with a vague understanding of the issues.

Comment Re:Sigh (Score 1) 321

Modded funny but the scary part it how right you are. Slap a new label on something and most people won't notice that there's not difference.

Along said lines the KGB (Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti) translated comes pretty close to Department of Homeland Security.

Slashdot Top Deals

Measure twice, cut once.

Working...