Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Fucking idiots (Score 3) 1532

They also re-elected a GOP majority in the House

For the House, Democrats got a MILLION more votes in than Republicans. The Republican majority was elected by gerrymandering. I accept that the system is imperfect and sometimes sucks, I'm not denying the legislative authority of the duly elected legislature. However it does completely invalidate your attempt to associate that house majority with a completely fictional popular-public mandate.

As to the claim but electing Obama was a referendum on the ACA that is equally stupid.

Considering Obama made it a central issue of his presidency, and a central issue of his campaign, it makes a hell of a lot more sense than trying to claim an anti-ACA mandate based on the negative one million votes by which the Republicans won the house.

Polls show half the country thought the law was already fully in effect until last week

Firstly, polls show a majority against Obamacare only when you include the percentage who "oppose Obamacare" only because it didn't go far enough and establishing a Single-Payer system.
Secondly, a comical percentage poll in favor of "The Affordable Care Act" and opposed to "Obamacare". A substantial percentage of opposition have no clue that ACA=Obamacare, and that a substantial percentage of oppositions is nothing more than clueless echoing of hollow "Obamacare is somehow bad" soundbites.

That is why our government was designed to operate with Checks and Balances. The budget ( and requiring it to start in a specific body at that ) is a clearly intended to put a hard limit on how far away the other two entities President and Senate are allowed to deviate from the will of the House. If the House ( the peoples body ) really hates something they absolutely should be able to kill it using this method.

It's interesting how you conveniently forget that one of the checks is that the House can't legislate anything, including budge decisions, without approval of the Senate. And they can't do so without Presidential approval, unless they can get a 2/3 mandate from both the House and Senate.

It also doesn't much help your case when the "will" of a majority of the House members is to drop the current shutdown bullshit and pass a clean budget, and it's John Boehner blocking blocking that easily passed bipartisan budget from coming to a vote. For internal party-politics reasons Boehner is allowing the radical minority TeaParty wing to burn down the house if they don't get what they want.

Does anyone who has really thought about this want the budget to become a political nuclear weapon?

Yes it absolutely should be.

Okey dokey... how about the Senate refuses to pass any budget.... zero dollars for border control.... zero dollars for the military... unless it's attached to some issue... lets say radical gun control. Here's a list of what sorts of guns are illegal, and it's a felony prison sentence if you don't turn in or destroy any illegal guns. There ya go. Using the budget as a nuclear weapon.

This is exactly why the TeaParty idiots are unfit to govern, and why the Republican party as a whole has become unfit to govern for letting the TeaParty wingnuts run the show. Because BurnTheHouseDown ideological extremism is DESTRUCTIVE. It's hurting the economy, it's hurting people, it's hurting the Nation. In a Democracy we're supposed accept that sometimes we just don't have the votes to get what we want, and we don't fucking threaten to blow up the goddamn country with nuclear weapons like a bunch of terrorists if laws aren't passed/changed/repealed to our liking.

It's not even like they are fighting over the budget, and saying they don't want to provide funding for ACA. They are demanding a change in law be passed, completely unrelated to the budget, and using the budget as a nuclear weapon to fucking blow up the country if their unrelated law doesn't get passed. No different than the Senate using the budget as a nuclear weapon to get a budget-unrelated gun control law passed.... when they know they just plain don't have the votes to pass that completely unrelated law.

-

Comment Re:If this was Apple... (Score 0) 258

Apple became a little less offensive in their saturation advertising, filling every space, every blog and every forum with their marketing bull shit, mind you only a 'little' less offensive and, that's only because they were losing. People got pretty sick of it and paid out the Apple trolls by attacking Apple at every oppurtunity.

The current Apple iPhone is still last years Android phone. Apple's biggest blunder this season was not to produce a phablet as well, huge mistake, this makes the Apple iPhone look even more primitive as for the bling gold colour, dumb.

The Phablets are currently getting the lions share of media space (apart from the short lame paid for spurt by Apple, with the idiocy of higher graphics performance against phones with 2.5 times the pixels to shift). A high resolution large screens are driven by performance, hence it has a high impact on perceptions of value and the 'price' that can be charged. Clearly Samsung is committing fraud to inflate the prices and profit margins of it's products (what does this have to do with Apple, nothing, so piss off Apple trolls).

Comment Re: Fucking idiots (Score 1) 1532

An almost endless series of scientific studies have thoroughly refuted the null hypothesis. The proportion of homophobes who are homosexual is strongly different from the proportion of homosexuality the general population. Homophobes are several times more likely than the general public to have an erectile response to gay porn, to spend more time looking at gay porn images when given a variety of images, and to have a faster reaction time for homosexual terms when when the test primed them for self-identification.

For example in this study two thirds of non-homophobic men showed no erectile response to a gay porn video, while 80% of homophobic men did have an erectile response.

Homophobes being active or repressed gay is a cliche because it's typically true, especially among the loudest most driven anti-gay crusaders. There is a reason they're driven.

Other research has found that such individuals are also highly likely to have been raised in very authoritarian and repressive homes. In such a home it would be emotionally dangerous or even physically dangerous for a child to express any homosexual inclination. In such a situation it becomes a survival mechanism for a child to develop an intense hostile internal repression of homosexual inclinations. This internal hostile repression is then directed outward at anyone and anything that threatens to evoke their internal repression.

-

Comment Re:Microsoft's approach (Score 1) 90

The problem is that security is ALWAYS your problem. Always. Because if you hand it over to someone else, that implies that you completely trust the entity you entrust your data to. You just shift the problem, from having to secure something to having to trust someone.

Now, essentially you're doing that all the time. Even if you have someone in house instead of "outsourcing" it to a third party. But unlike with the third party, you can take a closer look at the person or the people you entrust it to. You can check and double check their background, screen them thoroughly, depending on your country even go as far as snooping in their private life and finding out whether or not they are trustworthy on a very personal level. You can NOT do that when you hand security over to a third party since you will not have any chance to find out what person or what group of people will be responsible to handle your data. Worse, the personal responsibility is way lower. If your security officer fucks up, you can fire him and it's pretty certain that his career takes a nose dive. Imagine his motivation to do whatever is necessary to keep your security at level. Now compare that to a company like MS, IBM or the like. Do you think anyone there needs to worry about his job over a data breech? Or even his career?

Who do you think is a lot more motivated to keep it from happening, if necessary at his own expense? Who will go to whatever lengths it takes to ensure your data is protected, integer and available no matter the cost? Who will most definitely spend every penny of a budget you hand him on security rather than some job perks?

In a nutshell, security is something I would not hand over to a third party unless you're SO small as a company that it simply isn't feasible to have a dedicated security officer on your staff. And then I'd rather hire one person at a hourly base rather than handing it to some corporation who doesn't care about your security beyond the monthly bill they send you.

Comment Re:I'm sorry, no. (Score 2) 1191

It looks nice, I'll give you that.

No, no it does not look nice. It looks like complete and utter shit. Seriously, how can anyone look at this and not see garbage?

And no, I'm not sorry at all. Everyone involved in this design getting past the drawing board should be fired, from a cannon, into a giant vat of hot grits.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Here at the Phone Company, we serve all kinds of people; from Presidents and Kings to the scum of the earth ..."

Working...