Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. (Score 1) 391

And only the brilliant select few can see it . . . right.

If by "select few" you mean anyone who reviews the facts of the matter, reads the studies, and looks at the government's own numbers, then yes.

I note you did not present evidence or reasoning to formulate a disagreement with me. You demonstrate the particular form of irrationality most rampant in this nation with your failed attempt at a cheap shot. Religious traditions call it "pride" but fail to really provide a definition, sadly. It's this need to assert a phony sense of superiority by showing empty contempt for someone else who has done nothing wrong to you, or otherwise putting that person down, since you already judged that person as inferior to you.

It's just the kind of thing that will prevent you from being self-correcting, from recognizing and trying to constructively remedy your own faults as they occur. The more extreme form is the "perpetual victim", whose problems are always caused by others because nothing is ever his or her fault. The small-minded view things in terms of fault and blame and how to redirect those against someone else. People with even a little wisdom view things in terms of cause and effect and realize that if a problem is your own fault, that's good, because that means you can change it by making a better choice.

You're better than the petty, small-minded behavior you're displaying here.

Comment Re:Illegal, Not Undocumented. (Score 5, Insightful) 391

One way to win an argument is to change the terms or the definition of the terms.

Nothing "won" that way ever turns out well in the end. The practice is one reason the US has so many batshit insane laws like the War on Some Drugs that don't stand up to analysis, and continues to keep these laws even after this is well known.

The lack of rationality will have been the root cause of our downfall.

Comment Re:zero cost (Score 1) 198

Nah. It ain't "deep-seated". We just hate the same old bullshit by lousy "programmers". Apple likes developers and gives its tools away for free. Actually, the only company that doesn't respect its developers is Microsoft. But, oh wait, there are no real developers on the Microsoft platform. Apple and *nix has all the developers.

Ouch. Burn.

Prove me wrong. Show me any tool that is coded for or coded by Microsoft that is:

1) desirable 2) practical 3) intuitive


If you're looking for a fan of Microsoft to defend the merits of their software, you're barkin' up the wrong tree, friend. I've been a Linux user since around 1996 or so and have no interest in Microsoft products.

I simply found it amusing the way that guy worded his sentence, saying that something was free ... after you pay. That's all. I have no idea how it can be so difficult to appreciate (or dislike) a simple jest.

Comment Re:zero cost (Score 1) 198

Apple, for instance, only charges $100 to develop on the iPad, giving the tools away.

Sure, and the dealership just GAVE ME the car I'm driving after charging me money for it! Wow that was nice of them.

Ignorance is bliss... Xcode is still free even if you don't want to pay $100 for a developer account.

Actually you had to choose between two possible interpretations of what I said. 1) I am being facetious and am simply making a joke about the way he worded that, and 2) I was making a factual statement about developing software on (or for) the iPad. Because there was no additional context, you had to pick one. Naturally you chose the one that lets you make a smug comment while judging yourself smarter than me.

Is that bliss? Seems the product of a deep-seated (and horribly widespread) insecurity to me.

Comment Re:All saver than human drivers (Score 1) 152

How, exactly, do you propose to do that?

Require tests of one's ability to actually maneuver the car skillfully and to perform various emergency maneuvers in order to obtain a license, instead of the test being little more than memorizing traffic signs and rules. When about 50% to 75% of all applicants fail and must re-take the test, it is comprehensive enough. Require all retirees to re-take this test every two years in order to obtain a license. Treat "failure to yield" and "following too closely" as automatic fails of the test, and treat these violations as nearly as serious as DUI for licensed drivers on public roads. Stop worrying so damned much about speeding since it rarely causes accidents, and start telling cops to ticket slow drivers because they actually do create hazards for others.

We certainly can do this, but you can see there is no political will to carry it out despite all the "driving is a privilege, not a right" mantras you might hear from the states. The states themselves would receive far less in ticket revenues if poor drivers were kept off the roads, so again they have a disincentive.

Comment Re:Color me shocked! (Score 4, Informative) 745

Ha! You mean to tell me that all those kids who 10-20 years ago were getting a shit education grew up to be adults that don't know shit? Say it isn't so! Next thing you'll tell me is that correlation isn't causation and there is some bigger root cause we just haven't figured out yet.

There's a cause alright, and it's quite deliberate.

Comment Re:Computer literacy + social skills (Score 5, Insightful) 745

Most jobs don't involve a lot of math or english these days. More whether or not you can socially function and whether you know the basics of using a computer. Plumbing, paving roads, being a cashier, managing people, checking meter readings, working an assembly line don't involve much math or English. Perhaps society only needs a few people per hundred that are great at math? People don't need math skills to drive a semi-truck or make the donuts or take an order or stock a warehouse .... Similar to how most companies only need a few elite coders?

Historically education (especially higher education) was not for the purpose of job training. That was handled by other means such as apprenticeships. Education was for the purpose of personal enrichment and quality of life.

A nation of people who can effectively work their corporate jobs but believe everything the TV tells them will create a fascist dictatorship. In the USA it will probably be a "soft tyranny" of the "we know what's best for you, or else" type, not the "strong man with an iron fist" dictatorships we've seen in the past.

Comment Re:Problem solved (Score 1) 528

Because the cultural double standard means the guys face considerably less shame than the girls would in the same situation. It's a rather embarrassing truth, as it reveals just how shallow the supposed commitment to equality really is, but true even so.

That double standard will continue to exist so long as (too many) women continue to use sex appeal as a weapon of manipulation and a means of getting what they want.

If the significance of a woman's body and a woman's sexuality were to decline and become equal with mens', both effects would happen. It would be less useful as a tool of manipulation by unscrupulous women (the ones a wise man avoids) AND people would stop making a big deal out of every time a woman's body is exposed.

Comment Re:Interesting Quote (Score 1) 256

More laws regulating the internet to empower the NSA efforts will lead to countries (not just Brazil) leaving internet, or setting walled gardens, you can get out (by approved and monitored paths), you can use what is inside, but people from outside can't get in, and maybe the use of commercial US software could have some penalization (less access/tighly controlled). Is not a win-win, is an all-lose scenario but with someone yelling that we won.

It's a win for people who view strife and chaos as a means to achieve power. Historically, a peaceful prosperous nation with no crises and no serious threats has never been a means of expanding political power. "All lose" in the general sense, because the few who do gain are so tiny in number that they are less than a rounding error compared to those who lose, so I don't think your statement is generally false.

Comment Re:How about (Score 1) 528

I like to listen to people's views about "the nanny state" right up until the part where they tell me I should deal with it by.. voting in somebody to fix the problem for us...

You probably noticed my post contained no such recommendation. Personally, I really don't want to rely on the government to protect me from things that I can protect myself from merely by using good judgment and not taking stupid and unnecessary risks. If I do take a stupid and unnecessary risk and it results in regret and humiliation, I don't view that as a law enforcement problem.

Then there's the whole topic of how one actually gets to be a major political candidate and why no one who wants to strongly reduce the size and power of government is likely to ever get the financial backing it takes to win an election.

Comment Re:How about (Score 1) 528

Ah, you must be one of those people who thinks there shouldn't be any laws against fraud, since all parties had to agree to the transaction for it to progress.

Actually I'm more of a small-'l' libertarian. Force, threat of force, and fraud are the major things a government should protect you from.

What the law should say and what constitutes a good, rational decision are two separate issues.

Slashdot Top Deals

Chairman of the Bored.