Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: commonly used claim? (Score 3, Insightful) 227

Handguns are mostly worthless as a means of hunting either for food or sport. The simple fact is that handguns are made to kill.

Some thoughts on the above:

1. Apparently "hunting" is not "killing" in your lexicon?

2. Some handguns (though none I can think of made by Glock) are indeed used for hunting. This is what cartridges like .500S&W and .454Casull are for. I have friends who take deer or boar with them.

3. There are other shooting sports beside hunting. Glocks appear quite frequently in some of them.

4. Some handguns are made specifically for the purpose of punching holes in paper or knocking over steel plates, rather than for killing things. While they're capable of the latter, it would be akin to using a screwdriver as a hammer.

Just saying.

Comment Re:Seems like a good idea to me... (Score 4, Insightful) 307

Why would a developer build anything but the priciest luxury rentals? There is no economic incentive to build small places for small rents. There ain't no such thing as a free market for *renters*. Every advantage and price increase trick is on the side of the the property owners.

Developers will never, ever build enough units to drop rental prices. That would be stupid. They will build to keep supply high for the highest incomes, and let the lower price units dribble away into condos, which keeps rents high and induces more pricey condo contrstuction.

There is no incentive whatsoever to build cheap apartments. A decentive, really, because the neighbors will fight to the death anyone who tries to put low-income people in their Zillow Zone.

Comment Re:Blame it on the distros (Score 1) 109

A good example of how this could be done is the evolution of the Google home page. Without Googling for screenshots, who can actually tell the difference between the Google home page now and then?

I don't need to view screenshots.. I just have to look at page rendering times and view the page source. Google's homepage used to be lightweight and simple, and now it's a bloated mess of javascript.

Comment Re:i have no problem (Score 1) 377

Or look at California. If you put a flash suppressor on your gun, it's now an assault weapon because it is 10 times more deadly.

Reducto ad absurdum. The gun isn't more deadly because of the flash suppressor. Adding a flash suppressor is useful only to people who want to kill and get away without being caught. This has an obvious legit military use, but no legitimate purposes for civilians. That's why it's classified an assault weapon, because only the military has a legitimate reason to use it.

A flash suppressor is designed to reduce the muzzle flash experienced by the shooter, not to make the muzzle flash less observable. Thus, your argument fails.

Comment Re:Umm (Score 1) 402

Teaching critical thinking in school can't stand up to the power of indoctrination by Mom, Dad, and God at home. Religious parents actively work to ensure that their children see them (and the church) as the only authoritative source of truth.

Way to paint with a broad brush. Catholic schools are full of the children of religious parents, and the instructors are usually priests and nuns. The nuns will kick your damned ass if you're intellectually lazy. Whenever I reflect on my education, I always thank Sister Catherine Joseph, one of my 6th grade teachers. She was a mean woman, and I hated her guts, but she was one of the best teachers I've ever known. She taught two subjects: Science and Religion, and she taught both of them rigorously, and well.

Never underestimate someone who believes they have been commanded by god to turn your child into a thinking, reasoning, well educated member of society.

Slashdot Top Deals

You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 10^12 to 1. -- Ernest Rutherford