Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:We have a huge deficit (Score 1) 903

We have a $600 Billion per year deficit as of 2016. You definitely aren't taxed more than the benefits that are doled out.

That only logically follows if the "you" that you are referring to means "all Americans." It's certainly possible that the benefit that someone gets is worth less than the amount that they pay in taxes, as long as other people get far more benefit than what they are paying in.

Comment Re:To the college student who wrote this (Score 4, Informative) 364

The headline is referring to the total amount of student loan debt, which isn't totally related to the per-person amount of debt at graduation -- for instance, if more people are going to school and taking out loans; or if people are taking longer to repay their loans, the total amount of debt will increase even without the initial per-person amount increasing.

Of course, the way that the headline and summary were written were obviously going to cause confusion. Too bad that apparently stories are posted by retarded baboons here on Slashdot.

Comment Re:A note for readers: (Score 1) 120

Did you object to the the same thing being done to Bush?

If not, then you are the racist, since you have a double standard for how we treat people of different races.

I did not object, and I was a registered Republican at the time. And no, that's not racism.

Of course it is. A fairly minor incident of it, to be sure, but racism all the same.

To be clear, what is racist isn't the comparison of Bush to a chimpanzee. What is racist is the attitude that a white president and a black president need to be treated differently.

Comment Re:A note for readers: (Score 1) 120

I think the accusations of right wing racism during Obama's Presidency had more to do with the memes giving the President and First Lady various chimpanzee photoshop treatments.

Did you object to the the same thing being done to Bush?

If not, then you are the racist, since you have a double standard for how we treat people of different races.

Comment Re:Background and the real issue (Score 2) 424

I am not discussing suppressing votes or not. I am discussing the subsidy of broadband, and according to your statement, opposition to that subsidy is motivated by the same thing as suppression of the Black vote.

You're trying to weasel out now and pretend that you weren't pulling the racism card. But it was pretty damn obvious in your initial post. if you don't want to be known as somebody who points fingers and yells "RACIST" every time someone disagrees with you, then you need to stop doing it.

Comment Re:Background and the real issue (Score 1) 424

Here's what you said:

I believe the actual motivation behind this move is the same one that is behind making it more difficult for poor and disenfranchised people to vote - even though there is no evidence of significant voting fraud in the USA: Poor folks and minorities might vote Democratic. Suppression of the Black vote has historically been an important part of Republican strategy, this [] is just one of many reports on that issue. Having gerrymandered them into the most odd-shaped electoral districts, it becomes time to make sure they can't get news online or participate in democratic discourse.

You're making the claim that the real motivation behind not wanting the government to provide broadband is RACISM!!!! This is the same crap we get all the time. Sure, you'll pretend that you didn't mean me, personally, but this comes down to you claiming the reason for a position that you don't like is because of racism instead of honestly addressing real concerns.

Comment Re:Background and the real issue (Score 1, Interesting) 424

I'm sure you're reasonably well-off, Bruce. You're welcome to pay for broadband for all your neighbors if you wish to do so.

You don't get to tell me that I have to do so. And you certainly don't get to call me a racist, or claim that I'm trying to oppress people, if I don't agree with you.

Comment Re:So backwards... (Score 3, Insightful) 227

Well, now you're making a very different argument than the original "companies should not profit from products that might kill people." But I'll bite anyway. There are plenty of products that, though used correctly, can under some circumstances cause injury or death.

A very obvious one is medication. There are many medications that can have serious side effects, including death, when taken exactly as prescribed. We continue to use them because the benefits outweigh the risks.

You mentioned chainsaws. It is true that the majority of chainsaw accidents happen because of operator error. However, that doesn't mean that all of them do. The only way to completely eliminate the possibility of harm is to not use a chainsaw. But again, we continue to use them because the benefits are big enough.

There does need to be a standard for how safe autonomous vehicles need to be before we allow them on the roads. But setting that standard at "they need to never cause a death" is not only unrealistic, it is totally inconsistent with how our society deals with other potentially dangerous products.

Slashdot Top Deals

What this country needs is a good five cent nickel.