Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:But President Trump goes (Score 1) 349

I think there's another interpretation of these facts which you have neglected to consider. Many people might make substantial changes to their lifestyle if they believed that it would do any good. But do you know what happens when individuals make changes to lifestyle? Fuck-all. The majority of people can't or won't make substantial changes, so those people's efforts is just pissing in the wind.

The majority of environmental damage benefits not the poor, but the ultra-wealthy. Most of those people don't give one tenth of one fuck about you or me, and are utterly unwilling to make substantive changes in their lifestyles. The few that are willing to make changes have the economic power to have substantial environmental impact, but they are overwhelmed by the rest. The poor aren't shopping at Wal-Mart because they think it's fancy. They're not buying imported Chinese foodstuffs because they think they're of high quality. They're buying what they can afford.

TL;DR: You're not going to get poor people to make changes while rich people are flying past in their own private jets. And since most people in the world are poor, there's only one direction in which to look for where the changes need to occur.

Comment Re:Defending the right to speak for people you hat (Score 2) 277

Enough with the "right to free speech" stuff. The First Amendment doesn't apply to Facebook.

The right to free speech is considered a human right and blathering about the First Amendment as if the United States were the only nation to at least pay lip service to this human right is obtuse at best. Human rights must be aggressively defended because they are not natural rights; there is no such thing. If we want to have rights, we must defend them both for ourselves and for those with whom we do not agree or else we are giving up our right to them in the only way in which matters: decreasing protection of those rights.

I do not say that human rights are a poor concept, but they are a human concept. We invented them with our imaginations, and we must now protect them if we wish them to exist.

TL;DR: Either you believe in free speech or you don't, there's no "doesn't apply to Facebook" rule.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 277

It's ironic that most of the people screaming "muh freedum of speech!" are also the ones demanding that Muslims be heavily censored, and not even allowed into their countries because they are so dangerous.

I have a third (or Nth) position. I am screaming "freedom of speech" but I don't want to censor the Muslims or keep them out. I want them to be able to spout their harmful rhetoric for precisely the same reasons that I want the neo-nazis to be able to spout theirs; so that they can be counted, and so that their ridiculous and poisonous ideas can be attacked in the public sphere. I am fundamentally opposed, for example, to theocracy. But muslims aren't necessarily bad people, they've just been sold a hard line of oppressive bullshit. They're not the first, they probably won't be the last, and they can be helped.

Comment Re: Good (Score 1) 277

Every single country in the world where holocaust denial is a crime is a liberal democracy - so pretty much your entire post is nothing but strawmen.

Interfering with the right to free speech is one of the ways in which you corrupt a democracy. You prevent public discussion of critical issues, drive reprobates underground, and in turn prevent yourself from accurately counting them.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 277

The single greatest risk to peace, freedom, democracy and human life in the world today is corporations flagrantly ignoring the rule of law.

This is patent nonsense. First, legality does not equal morality. Corporations simply buy laws, and then their behavior becomes legal. The greatest threat to those things is not corporations refusing to follow the law, but that corporate dollars have been equivocated with free speech.

Comment Re:It's all BS (Score 1) 310

This wasn't strategic leaking of information. This wasn't some scheme to use classified information to gain some advantage. It was just the big mouths that currently run the Administration spouting off because they're a band of irresponsible children.

Well, no. They don't even have to tell Trump this stuff. They can just lie to him. He's a dumbshit, they will never know. If they're telling Trump things it's because they want them leaked.

Comment Re:Wonder why the postal system is ranked so low? (Score 1) 95

The only bad thing I might have to say would involve standing in line at the post office, but even that is not really necessary very often anymore with online postage and pickup.

The only reason you don't have to stand in line in spite of the volume of package that USPS carries is that UPS and FedEx do all the work of processing most of the small packages into the system, then they hand them off to the USPS... which would be out of business now if it didn't have those packages to carry. The USPS would also be out of business if not for residential spam, which has a massive environmental cost. The USPS literally exists now only as a spam delivery system.

Comment Re:Actions (Score 2) 95

The half a million who switched to streaming services are the ones who are actually dissatisfied.*
* excepting the very small minority who can get cable TV but not cable Internet

What about the very sizable group that can get high-speed internet access only from a cable company which offers them a discount cable, internet, and phone service bundled which makes it actually cheaper to have cable? Those people can be cable subscribers, and yet dissatisfied with cable, and also be rational consumers.

Slashdot Top Deals

/* Halley */ (Halley's comment.)