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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Defense? (Score 1) 368

Actually, the Korean, Vietnam and all the cold war related skirmishes are related to defense. The soviets were actively engaged in subverting governments and taking them over and we were the great big prize target for them. When you picture the scenario i describe and think to yourself "there is no way the threat the soviets posed to us was that sinister and involved," know that in fact i was that sinister and convoluted and involved. The soviets were truly trying to take over the world in such a manner that if one understood it they would no longer believe in any way that the US had ever made any attempt to do the same.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan are related to defense as well. Iraqi intelligence has been giving aid to Al Qaeda since the early 90's as they have waged a war against us. The Afghanistan Taliban gave them safe haven from which to plan and conduct this war. Is that enough reason to go to war? That's were the debate starts, but to say that there has been no provocation on any level since WWII is naive. Though i can see claiming that since a lot of it has not been direct provocation it doesn't count, but i would disagree on that point.

Since the end of World War II the US has faced some form of constant threat. Whether or not these threats have been severe enough to warrant the actions we have taken is a separate discussion, but the threats have been there. Those parties that have threatened us have always tried to conduct themselves in such a way that they could always claim any retaliation was unwarranted.

All in all, I think we should have given up Global Super Power status when the soviets fell. It's just not worth it anymore, but I think we were needed while they were standing.

We should stop bothering with foreign entanglements, but there are a lot of people who aren't going to like the fact that that would mean no help for Darfur, or Haiti, no more aid like we gave after the tsunami.

Iraq-Al Qaeda stuff:

Soviet stuff:
Yuri Bezmenov was one of the guys doing it until he defected. There is also a series of 7 videos where he gives a university lecture and goes into detail on this process. He is wearing a powder blue blazer in that series.

I know people want to believe the US is some big bad boogey man ruining the lives of innocent foreigners, and we have done some really nasty things. But if you look back at all of the nations that have been the big superpower through history, the US really does set the gold standard for benevolence in global politics.

Comment Re:Rice does nothing! (Score 1) 422

Heating the water drives it into the rice faster, surrounding it with water provides more available water for rice to soak up. Rice will absorb moisture, that is why it is fatal to birds. The rice expanding from absorbing moisture in the birds stomach (gullet?). Room tempurature air would not contain enough moisture or propell the water mollecules with enough heat to truly cook rice. Sure there are better things for the job, but people have rice handy. The absolute best thing would probably be severely refrigerated air that was then dryly heated back up before passing over and through the device. The cooling would lower the vapor pressure, removing the moisture, the heat would allow it to evaporate the moisture from the device more readily.

Comment Re:What's wrong swith cuss words? (Score 1) 262

Think of what those words mean, what they refer to. Historically, profane is anything that's outside of the church. Grocery shopping is profane, because it's not part of worship. Now notice that all the topics they refer to are things that have little place in church services. Fuck, shit, bitch. You can talk about sex during a church service, you can mention feces, even female dogs but it would be done in a mature and respectful manner and done in relation to God, Jesus and the Gospels. However, referring to these topics in such crass and crude terms, such as talking about fucking, shit or referring to women as bitches, would really never have a place in church services and therefor would always be profane. Couple that with the puritanical roots of the United States and you can see how they are considered 'bad.'

To be fair though, excessive use of such words is a sign of immaturity, gratuitous and generally pointless. I do quite like the way many of them sound, their abruptness...they are like little verbal gunshots to my ears, and i do like to go shooting. A sentence filled with profanity is likely to be devoid of thought as well. I do approve of them being considered "bad" words at least for children as i would rather my children (when i have them) learn to express themselves thoughtfully over using expletive filled tirades.

As far as not being allowed to use profanity stifling "free expression," well that is totally false. You can invariable express your thoughts more accurately and clearly without the use of profanity. Consider the following phrases: "Fuck you pal!" and "Sir, if i ever gained the approval of a man such as yourself, i would hang myself in shame." Which is more expressive?

In fact, a ban on profanity does not infringe upon ones first amendment rights. Even if profanity is illegal you can still advocate any political view legally, one may have to achieve a higher level of eloquence however. I am vehemently against such a ban as that is not a power granted to the Legislature (federal i know for sure, pretty sure about CA state, and yes i do know this is not a ban). As far as the problem with allowing profanity on daytime TV, ask instead what would really be gained by allowing it. Are you really missing out on anything because of the FCC's ban? Likely not. I do not mean to dismiss the question you pose, however it alone is not sufficient to properly illuminate the topic.

"Hell, Damn Fart. Boobs Fart Boobs!"

Comment Re:Question (Score 5, Insightful) 458

OK, i couldn't let this go. I have adopted a policy of avoiding inflamitory or overly confrontational statements, but you're just plain wrong. At least in one jurisdiction where I heard the name of the actual charged brought in a child porn case it was "exploitation of a minor," and that is exactly the heart of the kiddie porn issue. Ask any psychologist and they will likely tell you that sexualizing an individual before they have any first hand experience with the hormonal realities of sexuality is quite traumatic. You can often even tell the age a girl was molested at by listening to her voice and figuring out what age she sounds like. All rational people can agree that causing such psychological and emotional harm to a child is a heinous crime and that about the only way to top that is to do it for monetary gain instead of, or as well, as ones own personal gratification. And that is the root of anti child-porn laws. Child porn originally was both a record of such abuse and an enterprise based upon it. An entire industry based upon causing harm to others who are innocent. Child porn was essentially in the same league as a brothel specializing in the rape of the unwilling or a contract assassin agency.

Today we have a few hiccups thrown into the mix. There is a popular form of animation in which girls of ages that are indeterminate other than to say they are 'too young' (unless hentai characters are given specific ages, are they?). These images are not created upon the suffering of innocents. None of the rationals for criminalizing child porn work with hentai images. The only rationals that people try to apply to hentai are that those who enjoy it are 'sick' or that they 'might' do something bad if allowed to view it. What a horrible reason to outlaw something.

Another frightening trend with child porn laws has been the arrests of individuals who are underage for exploiting themselves by taking nude self-images. Or the arrests of their significant others for receiving the same. I can see no rational argument to lock up an 18 year old boy because his 17 year old girlfriend texted him a picture of her breasts, an image he had no chance to refuse before seeing it's content.

As an aside i think a reasonable way to treat teen "sexting" in the legal system is to treat it the same as consent laws. If it's legal for two individuals to have sex, they should be able to privately share images of themselves. However once those images become more widely distributed, the distributor should face some form of penalty, provided the distributor is not the same as the person in the image and willingly posed for it. No one should EVER be criminally liable for taking a nude photo of themselves and showing to another, unless it becomes a harassment case and not a sex crime. Moving on.

The common denominator here is that no action should be prosecutable unless it involves one individual causing harm or presenting a danger to another individual. Mix in "informed consent" as necessary if you believe it is necessary to keep things like tattoos, "branding", and anything that people purposely do that could be considered "harmful" legal.

It is neccessary in any free society to allow others to do things you dissprove of if it is not harmful to others. I see no reason for a nations legal code to violate the simple principle of "live and let live."

Now lets see what i get accused of for "defending child porn."

Comment Re:I'm with stupid (Score 1) 197

If the cars being driven while drunk were incapable of causing harm when they collided, they would be right to make fun of those who complained. Imagine the oil companies complaining because people were able to fuel their safe cars with some of the booze available for drinking, thus depriving the oil companies of their rightful income.

Comment Re:Admit it, this is exemplary customer service. (Score 1) 153

Yeah, I'll give you the prompt customer service point. I think the thing to watch with Google from now on will be whether or not they will adopt a more responsible position regarding user privacy from the very first release of a new product or service or if they will continually test the waters each time, waiting for a lapse of public diligence. Right now many people distrust Google as they would distrust a carelessly immature individual, starting now (or possibly a while ago) it will take a concerted effort on Google's part simply to maintain that perception. If with each new service from here on out they continue to neglect the privacy of users I think the perception will shift to one of deliberate passive aggression, and rightfully so.

Comment Re:virtually untouchable? (Score 1) 153


This is from a US perspective as that is the country i live in.

The freedom of speech is a political right, meaning it prevents the government from dictating your speech or outlawing it. It is intended to protect advocacy of political ideas. It also protects revelation and whistle-blowing. All of these are important to preventing a political system from eventually oppressing a citizenry.

However, there is no reason that one should not be held liable for damages caused through that speech. For instance if i were to state that you murder kittens and molest the elderly, and anyone believed me, you would have legitimate damages caused by me and should have some recourse available to you.

Of course, if it turns out that you in fact do murder kittens and molest the elderly, the damages you face when this is revealed are not caused by my revelation, but by your actions themselves.

All freedoms come with responsibility. If you are advocating a view that would allow one to use his freedoms to interfere with the freedoms of another and cause them harm, then i think there is some fundamental facet of the subject that you misunderstand.

Slashdot Top Deals

Murphy's Law, that brash proletarian restatement of Godel's Theorem. -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"