Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Protip (Score 1) 228

> If your employer doesn't like you, they figure out how to fire you.

They can fire you simply because they don't like you. That's all the reason required.

If they don't like you because you are a woman, or are black, that's a different matter. But simple, non-prejudiced dislike is enough reason to fire someone.

Comment There you have it, folks... (Score 5, Insightful) 411

Our government explicitly says, privacy is a threat to our safety, and it is the duty of our government to prevent privacy from being possible at all costs.

Go ahead, people. Keep voting for the republicans, because at least they are not democrats. Oh, I mean, keep voting for democrats, because at least they are not republicans. NOTHING is going to change that way. They'll keep boning us up the ass with this "oh noooo... can't have privacy.... TARE! Fnord! War on TARE!!!!"

Actually y'know what? Fuck y'all. YOU are responsible for this. Not me. I have not voted for either major party in DECADES. YOU... YOU are responsible for allowing this to happen. YOU have gotten the government you deserve, you half-wits. Sadly, I am the one who has to suffer for you turds voting for the jackasses (Bush, Obama, whatever) who allow and enable shit like this.

Comment I stopped reading after the first sentence (Score 3, Insightful) 408

First sentence says "Saudi Cleric" claims something is so. Why would anyone with any sense read any further? What are you guys, masochists? Do you intentionally look for things to irritate you? Surely you were aware than nothing beneficial or insightful can follow in anything beginning with "Saudi Cleric claims..."

Stop intentionally finding things to piss yourself off. You'll live a healthier, and probably longer, life.

Comment Re:They got off easy (Score 1) 320

Laws specifically addressing cheating are absolutely required. By your example, simple breaches of the rules would lead to jail.

For example, the rules of craps say that you pick up and throw the dice with one hand. Touching the dice with both hands at the same time is forbidden. Doing so is against the rules.

So this simple breach of the rules... according to you, would lead to jail.

Comment Re:The house ALWAYS wins. (Score 2) 320

" if you are winning in a game of chance with the odds firmly tilted"

If you play basic strategy Blackjack (which is easy, because almost all casinos allow you to use a basic strategy card at the table... printed matter the size of a credit card to use as reference to how to play the hands) the house advantage is about 0.44%. Shooting craps and betting the pass line with odds yields about a 0.8% house advantage. I hardly call that "firmly tilted"

In such games it is possible to win for quite some time... often, up to days of elapsed play... before the house advantage eventually causes you to become a net loser.

Compare this to the typical 50% advantage states typically have in lottery games.

Comment Re:jerk (Score 4, Insightful) 1440

It is not the job of police to enforce EVERY law. The concept is called "selective enforcement" and result in things like cops issuing warnings, issuing a verbal scolding, or choosing not to cite at all for some things.

One question is often asked at interviews for police work is, "You catch your mother speeding. Do you give her a ticket?"

The proper answer is, "no". Departments don't want people who would give their own mother a speeding ticket. Contrary to popular belief, departments want thinking human beings, not robocops.

Comment Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (Score 1) 535

do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?

Obama does. Here he is... direct quote... talking about his faith in the Zombie Jesus:

"I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life." - Barack Hussein Obama

Comment Apples and oranges (Score 1) 25

The difference between the Zimmerman case and this case is, Zimmerman stood a chance of (and did) being exonerated, and was being praised.

The murderers in the Aussie case stand no chance of walking for quite some time. And no one except objective imbeciles is praising the killers here.

Tisk-tisking the race-baiters and saying they are hypocrites is appropriate in many occasions. This is not one of them.

Comment Re:Failure to even Attempt to process the article. (Score 3, Informative) 926

I'm sorry but it clearly is excess calories. If you burn more than you eat, you will lose weight. It's basic thermodynamics.

No need to be sorry.

Anyway, it is more complicated than "basic thermodynamics". You can't just take the calorie counts, as derived from a laboratory process, and say that is what your body is using.

Not 100% of the caloric value of foods is burned. For example, feces has a caloric content. The caloric counts posted on packaging accounts for this, but it is only an approximation. And it is often wildly incorrect.

So stop with the condescending "I'm sorry it's basic thermodynamics." It's more complicated than that for a number of reasons... I have only touched on one.

Comment Re:Bloomberg, I have a great PR idea for you! (Score 1) 308

Ya think? You make this sound like some kind of revelation... as if you are imparting some kind of wise insight into the mind of Bloomberg.

Where have you been the past ten years? Anyone with a spine and a cerebral cortex has been aware of these things for quite some time.

Anyway, welcome back to planet earth.

Comment Re:SMOB (Score 1) 28

You raise a good point. With all the new money in the system, why have not prices increased?

People and businesses are scared shitless of this guy Obama and what he's going to do next. They are holding on to their money. They are not willing to invest it or spend it the way they would be if there were not someone with the policies and leanings of an Obama in charge.

There is a concept in economic called "the velocity of money". The velocity of money is a factor in inflation. Basically, the faster money turns around... the faster parties receive money and then spend it, the higher inflation. The longer they hold on to their money, the lower the rate of inflation. When people distrust the government, the velocity of money generally decreases.

The Fed is counter-acting this, and is trying to get people and businesses to spend in something approaching a normal way, basically by giving money away. Can you imagine what would happen if the Fed stopped that? What the economy would do if it stopped supporting Obama by practically giving money away? The economy would slam shut instantly. The fact that there is ANY spending is tribute to how much money they are dumping into the economy.

If that were to stop while Obama is in power, I believe the economy would crash. It'll crash eventually, but as long as the Fed keeps kicking the can down the road, the time of reckoning is being put off.

Slashdot Top Deals

"my terminal is a lethal teaspoon." -- Patricia O Tuama

Working...