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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:What's the deal with the rush of TSA stories re (Score 1) 1135

The first amendment to the US constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I think you have some reading to do.

Comment Re:What's the deal with the rush of TSA stories re (Score 1) 1135

I would say that yes, you/we have no right to travel by car without restriction. For example, you can't drive on other people's lawns. You must have a valid drivers license. You must have car insurance. If you are under 18, you may not drive after curfew.

Way to miss the point.

Your car can also be searched at any time, without warrant.

Bullshit.

Comment Re:What's the deal with the rush of TSA stories re (Score 1) 1135

Again, I'm not defending the TSA or the way we do airport security, but saying that he 4th amendment protects you from airport security is just stupid. The government cannot force you to submit to a search of your person without a warrant, it can and will force you to submit to a search of your person before allowing you into certain areas of its sphere of control. As long as the only penalty is not allowing you into that area, there's no legal issue.

So if people start setting off car bombs you would be ok with government mandated searches of your car every time you bring it onto a government constructed highway? After all, you can walk right?

Comment Re:The technical issues (Score 1) 309

The technical issues: Hurricanes, typhoons, rogue waves, tropical storms

Hurricanes, typhoons, and tropical storms are all the same thing. And they don't form below 10 degrees latitude because the Coriolis force isn't strong enough there. I guess you missed this part of the article:

The islands would be located at the equator as it isn't prone to typhoons and the climate is stable. However, in the event of large waves, strong elastic membranes would be attached to the lagoons around the outer circumference of the cells, with the shallows above the membranes standing 10m (32.8 ft) above sea level. The water pressure difference between the lagoons and the ocean would limit the movement of the membranes and buffer the force of the open sea waves. Additionally, 20-30m (66-98 ft) high seawalls would be constructed to handle a worst-case scenario.

Comment Re:Should be good for the economy (Score 1) 1530

No. It's not a meaningless phrase. You can't grow government without more and more government interference in the lives of individuals, and the corresponding loss of the individual's freedoms. I value freedom over the supposed security that a larger government offers every time.

Every time... so you are an anarchist then? If you have already made up your mind that there is no legitimate function of government, then I cannot have a rational discussion with you. By that kind of logic you wouldn't want the fire department to kick down your door and come rescue you from your burning house because that would imply a violation of your privacy and property rights. Now of course this is hyperbolic nonsense but it serves to illustrate that the line is much grayer than most libertarians make it out to be. At the end of the day the government isn't the only bully out there waiting to take your lunch money.

LOL. You're kidding me, right? The US was the most prosperous nation that has ever existed on the face of the earth until you progressives came into power.

I don't think providing a date range here should be all that difficult. If you can't tell me when it started maybe at least you can tell me when it ended. I really want to know what you are talking about here because for the life of me I can't figure out what it is. If you can't provide dates then at least give examples of the progressive abominations you are railing against.

How do you think we've done all that consuming that you hate without being very prosperous?

Please don't make assumptions about me and I will attempt to return the favor. And the answer is that a bubble economy is not a prosperous economy. But I still have no idea what time period you are talking about to reply coherently.

Why do the progressives want to redistribute our wealth to the world? Because we have so little of it?

When did I say that? The rest of your post is also irrelevant to this discussion so I won't address it.

Comment Re:Should be good for the economy (Score 1) 1530

American people aren't going to put up with the dishonesty and politicians working against them anymore.

I sincerely hope you are right, but I fear the system is too broken to self-correct at this point.

Take campaign finance for instance. Will we see meaningful reform under the Republicans? I seriously doubt it. At least the Democrats tried, which is more credit I can give the Republicans.

Comment Re:Should be good for the economy (Score 1) 1530

...and vice versa. Of course the advantage to a balancing of power, which is what happened, is that one party can't ramrod whatever it wants down our collective throats like they have for the past 2 years.

You haven't been paying attention the past two years then. Or for the past 10 for that matter.

This is a good thing, especially for people like me that believe both parties are cancer. The less damage either one can do the better. If this means neither party can pass ridiculous legislation full of pork and start more wars, AWESOME!

There are way too many problems in this country for gridlock; we absolutely must have competent leaders and government if we are ever to get out of this mess.

Put the koolaid down and sober up so you can see them both for what they are.

My criticism of the Republicans in no way reflects on my opinion of the Democrats.

Slashdot Top Deals

On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.

Working...