Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Modern Jesus (Score 1) 860

"Crucified" is hardly the word.

If there is more damage he can cause, you will find him dead in a hot tub from a stroke or heart attack or slammed into the site of a mountain in a plane crash or in a freak car crash. If he has already done all the damage he can, then they will discredit him by fabricating hideous and socially vile crimes against him.

Comment Re:Oh (Score 1) 141

I just started reading some of his stuff this year and I only learned of his cancer when I googled his name this past Friday. I don't want to get political, but every time I see something like this, I can't help but opine on how many times over we could probably have cured cancer by now if we just redirected a fraction of the money we so eagerly dish out to nation-building/oil-grabbing/whatever-the-fuck-we're-doing-in-half-the-fucking-planet-right-now, surveilling our own citizens, and bailing out banks and car companies all to the tune of many trillions of dollars in only a few years.

Death invigorates life, but cancer-caused deaths are one thing we should be doing away with any day now. Not doing so sort of feels like when you see someone's kid die of an easily treatable condition due to some religious belief. "We could have fucking done something about this!!!".

Comment Re:Deal breaker (Score 0) 581

Yeah, this is all way too fucking complicated. All I want is for ANYONE who is in my home to be able to play a game I have purchased on ANY of my consoles within my home. This "ten accounts" thing is bullshit. If they have to do something like this, it is far less complex to just tie it to your SYSTEMS. If I register three systems to my name, then any game I own on any of them should be playable (by myself or anyone else) on ALL of the systems I own. Tying them to "ten accounts" is just fucking absurd and goes in solving the problem in the totally wrong direction.

Also... Steam only requires you to connect once every 30 days.

Comment Re:IMHO: The movie IS a product placement (Score 1) 103

I've never heard of this movie, but it sounds completely miserable.

What's next? How about a movie about a PEPSI delivery driver? Or maybe a movie about one of those guys in third world nations who makes pennies buying soda from their local Coke bottler and stacking it onto the back of their bicycle and delivering it to the shoeless people in mid-huts many miles away, because we can't have two square inches of planet Earth that isn't addicted to corporate sugar-water? Or maybe Marissa can get Yahoo! a movie of their own, because they so desperately yearn to be "hip".

Comment Re:Constitution (Score 1) 568

I don't even understand why any of this is necessary to debate. Isn't the CIA and NSA forbidden from spying on American citizens? How are we even overlooking this, you know, pretty fucking primary element and just jumping on to other defenses?

Comment Re:Shocking! (Score 1) 609

Wow, I am kind of shocked to read someone who got it right.

The overwhelming majority of people don't understand the point of the Constitution. They parrot the incorrect lessons they were taught in school - that the Constitution is about "granting rights to citizens". As your statement points out, citizens already have the rights to do anything they want (by default) and don't need them given to them by the Constitution. The Constitution is all about placing limitations on government to protect citizens. Just because something isn't iterated in the constitution doesn't mean it is a right a citizen doesn't have -- however, if it isn't listed in the Constitution, it's not a right the *government* has.

Free Speech, for example. People think the First Amendment gives them the right to free speech. Untrue. They already inherently *have* that right. The First Amendment *IS ALL ABOUT PREVENTING THE GOVERNMENT FROM ERODING FREE SPEECH*. It's as clear as day in the language, itself:

"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."

Nowhere, there, does it have anything to do with your right to free speech or mine. The amendment is entirely about telling Congress that they're not allowed to make any laws prohibiting or abridging these rights.

Unfortunately, I'd say 95% of people think it is the other way around.

Comment Re:Read the court order here, all 4 pages of it (Score 1) 609

Unfortunately, people get hung up . . .

Bush spent two terms absolutely destroying every fundamental construct of a purportedly free society. Obama has spent almost two terms carrying that torch forward. Unfortunately, people do still seem to get hung up on pointless Bush-bashing, rather than focusing on the current threat which is Obama and the current administration. Both have pushed forward heinous precedents and damaged our society under the guise of "fightin' turrism", but only one of them has been a current threat actively in office for the last half dozen years. Going back to "but, but, Bush did this and that!" or "but but... Clinton did that and this!" is only relevant to historians or to people who approach politics as a team and are constantly masturbating with their side's jersey.

Comment Re:More regulation = less choices (Score 5, Insightful) 214

Amazon has fought against internet sales tax (or, rather, the idiocy of making people who don't live or work in one state paying taxes in it) for quite a long time. They only recently caved in and gave up bothering to fight. Remember, they even went so far as to shut down their affiliates program in response to states trying to force out of state companies into paying their sales taxes (the residents' duty to do so).

It seemed clear that when they gave up bothering to fight against it, they had something planned. This seems like what it was. "Well, if you can't beat them - join them".

I say, good on them. All of these idiots out there perpetuating this myth that the lack of enforcing out of state collection on state sales taxes was harming the little mom and pop stores in cities . . . little mom and pop stores that no longer exist. Not because of "the intarwebs", but because of the big national chains that already squeezed them out decades ago. They had this crazy idea that if you suddenly had to pay sales tax online, you would stop shopping at Amazon and Newegg and other outlets online and trudge across town into their stores to deal with their shitty staff and shitty stores and shitty checkouts and shitty parking lots and all the other BS that goes along with it.

Instead, they're going to find that people who weren't going to shop at Best Buy, Walmart, Target, Lowes, Home Depot, Ralph's and so on without sales tax collection will *still* do so . . . because if you're going to pay sales taxes either way, you might as well have the pleasure of the things showing up effortlessly at your door step the next day or two. In fact, they'll probably find a lot of people who will do whatever they can to throw their business to online services just to spite them.

Slashdot Top Deals

If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro

Working...