Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Unlike my high maintenence mechanical batteries (Score 1) 154

With batteries, emissions would also include leaks, and disposal concerns which are...significant. Basically the main reason they stopped insisting batteries went into hazardous waste instead of regular trash is because people were tossing them into the regular trash anyway.

I'd actually expect these to be safer on the disposal side, especially since once no longer producing power...well, they are diamonds.

Comment Re: Very flawed legal analysis (Score 1) 1321

Which is why, as I recall, this is one of the cases where it intent is irrelevant and you have to sign papers saying you understand why you are not supposed to have files on non-secured, unauthorized machines. Given she's a lawyer, she either is an impressively incompetent one or she read the papers carefully before signing. Really, the only good reason to have a private server there is if you are planning to do something like what Snowden did--and then you'd want it to be a silent man in the middle that simply retains copies of everything, not where the sole copies of anything resides, and likely very secure because it would be wise to be assured of sufficient forwarning to GTFO if it's discovered.

Comment Re: Wonder what percentage consulted real news out (Score 1) 212

[..] Trump had one major advantage in this election. He's not Hilliary Clinton. That, and only that, got him elected. [...]

I'd note that from some of the leaks, apparently they'd wanted him as an opponent on the off chance that people would decide that Trump was worse than her--which is its own major problem, since if you're having to worry about that...maybe you've anointed the wrong heir.

I think you're slightly off here on how free they were to pick who to run, too, but that's because I actually have found rather convincing that the popularity of both Trump and Saunder represented a popular rejection (on both the Left and Right) of the establishment--the problem of who we got as the alternate to the establishment is beside the point, though I think it's worth appreciating the irony of the establishment candidate ending up being the one run by the Left.

Comment Re: I got most of my news from the Onion (Score 1) 212

Actually, the credibility this round would be maintained by either remaining apolitical or going after both sides. The Left should not be escaping censure for its role in all of this, merely because their games finally didn't go in their favor...which is something that has been seen coming for decades. The only things that weren't certain was when and who, not that the sword of Damocles was going to fall.

Comment Re: calixit (Score 1) 1368

Bigger problem: They would have to make their own international agreements because they would be their own, new country--and that would really add to their water problems since they likely would get nowhere near the amount they do now. (On the bright side, this will be better for the environment: we now know that the original agreement used a wet period; the 'drought' is actually what normal rainfall looks like for the region.)

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 1081

As several have pointed out, fixing gerrymandering would be necessary--though this might be the only way to create the required social and political pressures to pull that off. Personally, I'd actually like to see district lines as something that must be voted on--so if a region decides that it makes the most sense for them to use community boundaries for setting their lines, they can.

I would definitely require the maps used by any region to set the districts for anything be freely & easily available to the public in their 'raw' form--and the methods used to set any boundaries on that map that aren't physical parts of the territory be both transparent and conform to a widely-accepted standard. That includes political boundaries. We had a couple states realizing that whoops we kiiiinda lost our border this century--didn't make much news or anything, because they decided to do the equivalent of a quiet-but-frantic search together instead of fight it out like...well...the last time that happened sometime in the 90s or so... (I wish I was kidding, but basically a lot of the boundaries are based off of old documents that are...not always where we think they got stored, or which when we check them are...not as exact as could be wished, to put it mildly, or don't say what we've been assuming they did for...well, this case? We're talking centuries of 'misremembering' the documents' contents...)

But a pure popular vote means that basically anybody outside of the megalopolises doesn't matter enough--they're as important to a person who wants to be POTUS as a state seen as 'in the bag' is now. Instant runoffs might fix that, some, but only if the third parties actually got their acts together--this could have been their election cycle.

Comment Re:But it's not mob rule (Score 1) 1081

Actually, it was more convergent evolution. There's quite a few places that had functioning democracies when Europeans finally found them, including in the Americas, and Sudan actually managed to have a long-running functional anarchist...thing...going, dating back well before anarchists turned up. (It is still going, actually. They were understandably confused by the whole idea that laws come from government--for them, that's not how it works.)

Comment Re:But it's not mob rule (Score 1) 1081

Alright, let's make this instead a bunch of people voting on what to order for lunch instead, since it's easier to explain that way.

Once again, all parties are equally important. You just happen to know already that, say, Alice will want Chinese, Bob will want pizza, Charlie will want something Mexican. Daniel and Eva, our 'swing states,' however, might go for any of those...and thus have the deciding votes.

Comment Follow your own advice (Score 1) 2837

They are represented by their own government; the US is not a system where the top political slot goes to the party (or coalition) with the most seats in Parliament but one where the President is elected independently of Congress and Congressional seats are awarded by simple majorities.

The point at which in the US system you need to form the coalitions is on the party level, and you do it precisely to have a sufficiently broad base. This past cycle was one of those once-in-a-lifetime moments where a third party, if it'd been willing to make that coalition, could have set itself up to knock out one of the big two--this has happened, and used to happen a bit more often. (I don't think the Green party could have done it; the Libertarian party could have done it by actually being libertarian...)

Actually, I'm not too sure you understand how democratic systems work. You think the DNC actually gives a flying fuck about if their political opponents get represented? Despite the leaks of what the inner party thinks of both their external and internal opponents that happened this year? (It's not the first time, but it's remarkable how public they got about it this year. It probably drove up the Stay At Home & Green Parties' shares.)

Comment Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score 1) 2837

[...] America, land of 4.9% unemployment, [...]

You do realize that those official unemployment numbers are kept artificially low by not counting anybody who is underemployed--occasionally dramatically, given the gig economy--or who has basically given up bothering because the odds of success & likely payoff seem to be significantly less than the effort involved? It's been an ongoing complaint for decades that the US's unemployment numbers are not really giving an accurate picture...and changes in employment practices are only making this worse.

Funny thing, if you make it really expensive to have somebody as a full-time employee--well, you're going to end up with a lot of part-time workers and people who are officially not employees...and I'd like to note that the last may go up as they realize that this gets them out of the minimum wage laws.

Comment Re: Republican Would Benefit? (Score 1) 304

Intent doesn't matter, results do. You can cause a lot of problems by being a well-intentioned person who doesn't know what you're talking about.

Requiring bills be visible to the public in their final form for a reasonable amount of time before they become law means you can't stick onto, say, a standard bill a rider that makes it a crime to hold the wrong political views, or backdooring something like SOPA or PIPA by having it be officially a bill banning setting small children on fire. Or you might with all good intentions pass a bill that you're utterly convinced will increase the rights of the minorities--never mind that it is at best merely theater and at worst outright harmful for those it is supposed to help. The 72 hour period also means you can't easily find a period where a bill that (rightfully) would get objected to by the public can be rushed through without the public noticing.

Honestly, I expect anything that needs to be taken care of faster to be prepared for ahead of time: if it can't wait that extra 72 hours, it probably oughtn't wait long enough for a law to get written, either. Legal code is much like computer code here: the best outcome you ought to expect is that it is merely an amazingly ugly kludge that (barely) functions...

Slashdot Top Deals

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Working...