Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Although I must add... (Score 1) 216

This line, in particular. Yes, I know that pollution used to be awful, but this statement is a bit over the top, don't you think?

Is it? Or is there a reason why California is consistently first in the USA and often first worldwide on environmental protection initiatives, and we have to shame the rest of the country into adopting them years later when they have precisely the problems we already have had, and predicted for them? We have to fight tooth and nail to even be permitted to set our own standards, and who do we have to fight? Damned near the rest of the nation. So there's a few states that give a shit about the environment, but most of them don't even do a good job of pretending.

Comment Re:Although I must add... (Score 1) 216

I forgot to add, when ya'll give the federal government more than you receive

If only you knew what you're talking about; California does that every year.

B/c w/out Google, Apple & the rest of Silicon Valley, y'all are WAY behind us economically.

Without them, the USA would be way behind, economically.

Comment Re:Although I must add... (Score 1) 216

Yeah, but y'all have gone too far.

This is the inevitable consequence of every fucking thing being a war. Eventually, you develop a war mentality. It is unfortunate.

There are lots of things I would change about California. Some of them, however, would require that the rest of the nation stop picking our pockets. It's not enough that we produce the food and the entertainment, you have to take our money as well and then spend it on things that even we can't have, like education or road maintenance?

Comment P.S. (Score 1) 565

P.S. My lie is that any of this applies to me. It doesn't. The wire doesn't even run to my house. If it did, I would pay [Mediacom] for cable internet, because I would get a better deal than I get from my WISP. I would not have cable television at all unless it saved me money on my bill somehow. It's not worth stealing. This is how I have operated in the past. Thankyou.

Comment Re:Ridiculous stunt (Score 1) 565

Please. Are you here because you're in IT or because you like trolling? That fallacy has been hashed to death right here many times. Material, staffing, electricity; to name a few variables.

Material: They've already run the wire into my house.

Staffing: If I don't fuck anything up, they need no additional staff.

Electricity: It takes a vanishingly small amount of additional electricity to send me the signal when they're already sending it to my neighborhood, because they use RF propagation and not a current loop.

In short, unless you break something (already addressed in another comment) it doesn't cost anything additional for you to receive the cable signal. They already have the equipment to deliver it to the whole street installed and running. It's not a fallacy, and no amount of your lies will make it so.

Comment Re:Although I must add... (Score 3, Interesting) 216

and the EPA has been forced to write new legislation specifically to say "... We only have to make a new law about this because California rode the short bus on this stuff. Again.

Too bad you have that entirely backwards. We had shit for emissions standards in this country until California made a big noise about it. If you like breathing, thank California. Also thank California for acting as the trial for these problems. Los Angeles proved what happens if you don't have a strong EPA; things like children with bleeding lesions on their lungs simply from breathing the air happen. As well, the federal government prevented The People of California from implementing only in our state the automotive emissions restrictions for which we actually voted because it would do harm to their future bailout poster children. The truth is that only California is serious about environmental protection, and the rest of you just want to rape the land and shit in your neighbor's mouths through the air.

Comment Re:BBC's most effective copyright strategy in effe (Score 1) 216

Not only that but that old tape was VERY temperamental about how much climate and humidity it would tolerate so had to be kept in...well practically a vault with strict climate control which is why so many shows from the 40s-60s were lost both in the USA and the UK, the cost to keep early tape in playable condition was just insane.

Or you can just put it in a salt mine, done and done.

Comment Re:Bad idea (Score 4, Insightful) 149

Wouldn't it make more sense to fix the root cause of this problem, that is, overfishing?

Heh heh heh. Overfishing. I mean, that's part of the problem, but did you forget about acidification? (Let's just gloss over nuclear currents for a moment.) The significant sea creatures that can tolerate it gracefully are brittle stars and jellyfish. Algae will do okay as well, but kelp won't -- the increased acidification promotes algae that competes with it. So you get a big soup of stars, jellies, and algae. Mmmmmmmm good.

As for what the jellyfish become food for, it's everything below it, like always. Unless you have a problem with bottom-dwellers there's no reason to complain about that. The real issue is what we're doing to our biosphere that's causing these problems.

By all means, stop overfishing, HAHAHAHA. But that won't stop this.

Comment Re:RoI (Score 1) 203

Right. Because there are no protections against price fixing ;)

The laws are written by the corporations. Please try again.

I assume you are venting upset over Obamacare,

Nope. I think Obamacare will fail, and I think we will never fix the problems with medicine in this country until we remove the corporate profit motive, but it's still better than just leaving everyone twisting in the wind.

Comment Re:How about (Score 0) 528

OK, so why are we hating on the guy (or girl) who distributed the picture to the Internet?

If someone is given something, they've presumably been given privilege to do with it as they please: masturbate to it, respond to it, share it with friends, share it with the world. Whatever, as long as they don't sell it. That's how these things work.

Don't like it, and don't trust the other person as much as you do a close friend or relative? Sign a contract - presumably goods of some sort are being exchanged, yes? Maybe it's nude pictures for esteem, perhaps.

Or, better yet, follow the following protocol: don't be a slut, or at least be a bit more selective. That goes for guys, too, though obviously there are more women sending nude selfies than guys. If you're going to trust someone, be damn sure they're trustworthy. (You have sex with a condom even when you trust someone enough to let them smear their genitals all over your own, so why not a little precaution with pictures?)

There's so much porn on the Internet at this point that I don't really get the fear. There are so many unnamed boobs on the Internet at this point (not including ACs) it hardly matters.

Comment Re:Ridiculous stunt (Score 0) 565

My last service call from my cable company indicates this isn't always true. I lost my paid cable signal (broadband) because a neighbor messed up some connections while attempting to get free cable.

Well, that guy deserves a [metaphorical] foot in his ass, but it isn't inherently like that.

Slashdot Top Deals

You do not have mail.