Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Get real! (Score 1) 338

the rest of the figures are for their Super PACs as stated in the original posting

So you're saying the millions donated to Obama's Super PAC all came from ordinary people and not corporate interests? The only point this seems to make is that Obama is beholden to a larger group of more diverse corporate interests. It certainly in no way indicates that the corporations didn't support Obama.

Comment Re:Get real! (Score 1) 338

Limits to the campaign directly. I'm quoting figures from the Obama and Romney Super PACs.

Strange that. According to the NY Times the numbers you quote seem to exactly match those they report for direct donations. So I guess the NY Times are idiots too?

The numbers for the Super PAC donors actually fairly closely match in levels for both Obama and Romney, respectively: <$100k 11% and 14%, 100k to 1m 40% and 44%, >1m 49% and 42%.

Correct, and who is more likely to have the power to strong arm someone? a business executive. And who do they majoritarily favor? Romney.

Please actually look at the link I provided earlier. Arguments work much better if actually look at information that supports them rather than just spouting what you think is right.

Comment Re:So copyright is not just who can copy? (Score 1) 338

You can't honestly believe that has the production value of LotR.

No. I wasn't saying that. Monsters does actually have some fair special effects, all done on the guys laptop apparently. I was pointing out the contrast in a decent movie with decent special effects made for $15,000 versus your typical Hollywood fair where $15,000 would even come close to covering the catering bill. LotR could be made as good if not better (focus on story and characters rather than the FX and big names being the movie) for at least an order of magnitude less money than it takes a main stream studio. I provided Monsters an example to support my position.

Comment Re:Get real! (Score 1) 338

Donor 58 by highest amount for Obama gave as much money as the 217 highest donor for Romney. Yeap, Romney had approx. four times as many 1%ers giving money to this campaign.

Did you even look at the link I provided? You see, there are limits to how much an individual can contribute. So what they do is strong arm all their buddies into giving some. The money may technically be coming from a bunch of different people but in reality it's source to one corporation or individual. Kinda makes the numbers you so proudly expound about irrelevant. Yup. I'm the simpleton.

Comment Re:How is this "chilling"? (Score 1) 111

The guidelines are that people should be a bit more liberal in what they accept - not the scariest thing that the UK government has ever proposed.

Except that this doesn't change the law nor what is illegal. It's just guidelines for subjectively selectively applying the law only where they feel like it.

-- "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." From Atlas Shrugs

Comment Re:The moral of the story is... (Score 2) 107

This is all of the stuff we used to joke about "papers please" where only the evil communist bastards would do such a thing. Only now, it's accepted as perfectly normal and legal.

Literally. I thought this was an Onionesc piece of satire when I started reading it but as far as I can tell it's real.

"[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID."

"This fear is what's given us the reason to do this. Once I have stats and people saying they're scared, we can do this," he said. "It allows us to do what we're fixing to do."

Welcome to the new world.

Comment Re:Murder rates (Score 1) 2987

Compare the UK to the US.

Ok. The violent crime rate in England is higher than it is in South Africa. Switzerland has a private gun ownership rate over half that of the US (note not counting the government issue rifles) and yet "the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept."

So yeah, it's all about gun control laws.

Comment Re:Yay (Score 1) 2987

Given the choice between the two, I'd rather live in a world where there a good chance of getting robbed than a good chance of getting shot.

I live in a fairly affluent suburban neighborhood in the US. I'd say my chances of either are a lot less than that of a person in an equivalent type neighborhood in say Britain.

Comment Re:Yay (Score 1) 2987

Yeah, there are definitely cultural influences as well, hence my writing "it's not just as simple as 'nobody can get a gun.'" At the same time there are many societies around the world where assault weapons are not available, and -- surprise! -- massacres perpetrated using assault weapons don't occur.

Switzerland and Finland have a private gun ownership rate of more than half that of the US. Shouldn't the massacre rate in those countries be about half that of the US?

Slashdot Top Deals

Your program is sick! Shoot it and put it out of its memory.