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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Not so sure (Score 1) 242

No the critical ingredient is public relations. We could have burned down 10 mosques for every dead US soldier, we could have gone house to house and shot the family of anyone found to have gun, we could have poisoned wells, we could have carpet bombed anywhere insurgents were even suspected of being.

Trying to look like the good guy mattered.

No picture it being far more personal. Lefty liberals and teabaggers hate each other, no need for goodwill when its all over because the other side will be dead.

This. If you're worried about America turning into a totalitarian police state a la 1984, it is ridiculous to think that the government would pussyfoot around wiping out a small insurgency by whatever means necessary. If you think the government would treat you with at least as much decency and humanity as it has the Iraqis or the Afghans (which may not be much, but as the parent notes, still isn't on the level of carpet bombs and poisoned water supplies), then you probably don't need to worry about turning into a 1984-style police state, because that kind of restraint is incongruous with that kind of state.

Comment Re:Pure distraction (Score 2) 242

Which is the real reason for the second amendment. With an armed populace the government fears the people. This is freedom.

Let's be honest, even if every person in America bought a gun, the government still has tanks, jets, bunker busters, and enough other high tech, high yield weaponry, armor, and other gadgets, a full-on rebellion would be almost impossible to pull off. The Second Amendment may have kept people safe from the government in 1776, but that was when pretty much anyone could arm themselves as well as the military. The handgun you keep in a safe in your closet is not going to protect from the police state you're so worried about, it's just another distraction you've been provided to keep you pacified (rather ironically).

Vote no on almost every new law. Vote in every election. Vote for the nobody. Vote for the new guy. Never vote for the incumbent. Never vote for his most likely opponent.

This is absolute nonsense. Vote no on almost every new law? What about when you vote no but the law passes anyway, then later a new law comes up to repeal the old one? Should you vote no on that too? What if a law comes up to cut taxes or ease gun control? Vote no one those too, just to fuck with the system? And always vote for the nobody, never the incumbent? I know this is hard to swallow but whatever your ideology, it's a big country and there's always some incumbent out there who agrees with you and is pushing your agenda, and is running against some incompetent nobody who fiercely disagrees with you. But hey, vote against your own interests anyway because surely if every problem isn't fixed in two years it must mean your representative is corrupt and it's time to try someone new.

You must be self sufficient as much as possible. You can not effectively hold power over those you owe everything to. Pay your bills. Do not over spend. Save. Work. Expect nothing from them and more from yourself. Support your family. Hold your values. Remember. These people are elected. This is our fault. We must fix it.

This part is good advice.

Comment Re:Falling to near zero?? (Score 5, Interesting) 274

With algorithmic pricing, the Amazon marketplace is just operating as an automated dutch auction. It's how markets should behave: raw supply and demand, with no collusion or other market distortions propping up prices.

Because everyone automatically undercutting their competitors by a few cents over and over until everyone is selling at cost and all but a couple players eventually have to shut down because they can't afford to run a profitless business forever, whereupon the few remaining players can finally raise prices ... isn't effectively collusion or a market distortion.

Comment Re:Next: "Fucked" button. (Score 2) 147

They used to have it. Under 'Relationships' there was a 'Hooked Up' option with a date. iirc it was one of 4: Single, It's complicated, In relationship with and hooked up.

Back before the apps, before ... well damn near everything.

I've been with Facebook since it was only available for individual university campuses and there was never a Hooked Up option for relationship status. There was, however, a way you could specify how you knew someone (i.e. worked with [friend] at [company] in [year], had [class] with [friend] in [year], [friend] is a relative, etc) and "hooked up with [friend] in [year]" was among those options, but it was very buried in a person's friends list and certainly not something that was displayed prominently on their profile. It wouldn't have made sense anyway. A hookup, assuming all goes as it should, is by nature not a relationship status.

Comment Re:This is getting beyond ridiculousness. (Score 1) 217

Not that I'm a patent lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there was prior art for a "system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data" in 1996. The issue some here are getting worked up about is that Apple and other companies are able to patent wide-reaching and obvious ideas like "a method for performing an action with a computer" and then use said patents to reduce competition, and consequently, innovation.

Comment Re:ok, like IBM and others didn't exploit customer (Score 3, Informative) 244

Nobody forces anyone to go to work, stop at red lights, wear clothes outside, or the like either.

Actually the police do (other than the going to work part).

If I want to listen to Spotify or other services, guess what? They use FB for their access.

Actually they don't. I have Spotify fully disconnected from Facebook.

Comment Re:TFA's Scientist's take on Gattaca problem (Score 2) 146

Im fairly certain that there are a plethora of choices that dont involve an abortion-- even if you dont count the "day-after" pill.

What? There are two choices. The woman carries the child to term or she doesn't. If a woman is pregnant, the only choice other than abortion is to carry the child to term, unless you count an unintended miscarriage as a choice, which, if unintended, it could not be. ...wait, are you thinking of that DS9 episode where Bashir transplants Keiko's baby into Kira? You know that's not real, right?

Comment Re:No income taxes were paid? Good. (Score 2) 175

Since you want to bring up pharoahs and kings, we might as well bring Romans into it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso Pretty much all of the things listed in this clip are things your government provides, not your free market, and they are paid for with tax money. The free market did not give you roads, sanitation, regulated utilities, education, the order of law, etc. It gave you wine though, you've got that at least. Although it'd be hard to produce or purchase the wine without the roads, sanitation, regulated utilities, education, order of law, etc.

Comment I was surprised for a minute (Score 3, Insightful) 618

I was surprised, for a minute, to see all these Slashdotters sarcastically pretending this is proof of global climate change, or forgoing the sarcasm and outright denying it entirely. Then I remembered that, despite Slashdot readers being generally accepting of, and, in many cases, even excited about science, they also tend to be generally libertarian in their politics, which means denying ideas widely held by entire scientific and academic communities if it might lead to more gub'mint.

Comment Re:Municipal broadband is on its way, then (Score 1) 397

If someone claims any government involvement allows censorship, then someone else can claim it also prevents distribution of religious programming to maintain separation of church and state. Hopefully everyone will realize the path to getting what they want is not interfering with others getting what they want.

You must be new to America.

Comment Re:Ron Paul should give away his money (Score 1) 1797

And how EXACTLY do you figure that student LOANS are a part of the safety net?

Interest on students loans is federally subsidized. For one thing, all interest is subsidized while you are enrolled, so you don't have to worry about making payments until you graduate. For another, the rate itself is subsidized, giving you a much lower rate than if you tried to get a personal loan from a bank or put your tuition on a credit card. This allows students who aren't poor enough for direct grants and scholarships, but not rich enough to pay it all out of pocket, to still get some assistance.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know, Callahan's is a peaceable bar, but if you ask that dog what his favorite formatter is, and he says "roff! roff!", well, I'll just have to...

Working...