Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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: Its easier to pick sides (Score 2) 275

Deporting people who are not citizens is required if they are not properly authorized by our government to be here. This is not just for the benefit of the people who live here, but most importantly it is also for the benefit of the people who are here illegally. Also, it is the law.

If you want illegal immigrants to be legal, change the law. Until then, uphold the law.

It really is that simple, and no malice or hatred is required. Well, except on your part, as a necessity of continuing to support the exploitation of human beings by corporations, coyotes, human traffickers, and the like.

As for intolerance, I can assure you what you just wrote is incredibly intolerant. You express immense concern towards what the "right" is doing and who they are, but very little concern for the effect that illegal immigration has on the immigrants themselves and also on the citizens who are displaced by these immigrants.

What you fail to realize is that you are not talking about being tolerant of Mexicans (actually many of the illegal immigrants come from other countries) or "accepting differences." You are talking about being tolerant of illegality. You are talking about subverting the sovereignty of a nation. You are talking about weakening the security and well being of the nation. You are talking about a multitude of issues, none of which actually intersect tolerance and acceptance of differences, but you call them that because who doesn't want to be tolerant and diverse? Mis-definition as an argumentation technique is still disingenuous, no matter how well intentioned your misdirection is.

That you are content with the virtual slavery that some immigrants experience while here is particularly telling. That you express rage at the "right" is further proof that your concerns are not for the lives, health, and well being of other humans.

If you were truly concerned with these people you would be angry at both parties. You would have been screaming your head off at Obama for not taking care of the issue of amnesty during his first two years. You would have been incensed at the number of immigrants that are being used in human trafficking of sex slaves IN MEXICO before they ever get to America.

Instead you see deportation of illegal immigrants as an attempt by the "right" to "destroy America and everything it stands for." America is a Republic. A nation of laws, most of which are mutable and can be changed by the will of the people. You advocate for breaking laws, not changing them. You advocate for breaking these laws on behalf of people who aren't even American citizens. You advocate for this lawbreaking even though it takes jobs, income, and taxes from Americans that need it most.

You are the one trying to "destroy America and everything is stands for," sir. I suggest you stop demonizing people around you and start holding your own political party accountable for the laws that are currently on the books. The sooner we can get politically active people to take responsibility for the political landscape and laws that are in place, the sooner we can create a solution that ticks all of the boxes, namely protection of the US worker and citizens, security of the US border, and prevention of the exploitation of immigrants. Name calling, vituperation, blaming the "other party," and supporting lawlessness are not the American way. Electing political candidates that see a problem and create solutions is. Unfortunately, with your hatred-blow off valve running wide open and facing the opposition you can't generate enough steam to actually make a difference where it matters.

Comment Re:What's changed? (Score 1) 275

I prefer to preprogram myself when meeting someone new. I will intentionally think of at least three things I like, admire, or want to be more like myself about the person I am meeting for the first time. I try to do this before we even make eye contact.

I encourage others to try this. It has led to some amazing and beautiful interactions. Even if you go out on a limb and think something positive that might not be true, you can usually find evidence for it almost immediately.

I see it as a practical application of the Robert Anton Wilson related idea of "what the thinker thinks, the prover proves."

Comment Re:yeah (Score 1) 275

This verse refers to a common threat in the old world. Certain religions contemporaneous with these early writings advocated having orgies that culminated with the burning of some of the participant's children. Others would use dog pits or bear pits instead of fire. Essentially the orgies were a religious observance, and the children were killed at the culmination of days of religious observances. The sights and sounds of the burning children were reported to increase the ecstatic frenzy of the participants to incredible levels.

Comment Re:Credit nuclear plus fake carbon accounting (Score 1) 206

The small home wood heating systems are toxic to everyone near by so that won't be lasting long. Studies are showing that moderate levels of PM2.5 smog is a major health problem and excessively deadly

Wood isn't 100% renewable in most cases. If you remove a bunch of trees, there is a very good chance that the total mass of trees that grow back will be smaller. In places with heavy deforestation, the amount of trees that can grow back may only be 50% of what was logged in the 1st round.

Trees are delicately balanced bags of water. Their height and mass is related to how much wind other trees can protect them from along with hundreds of millions of years of evolution optimizing their density. It is an example of applied use of fractals.

Comment Re: Louisiana is one big sinkhole (Score 1) 306

You seem wise. My post was in half-jest. An oversimplification based on the presupposition that government and corporations will co-create this tax system and do so in a way that it favorable to them, not the people.

I would ask you this: How do you reconcile instituting an entirely new tax scheme when we already have regulatory bodies in place that monitor and control the means of production in this country?

Meaning, why would it be beneficial to create an entirely new tax system when you can achieve the same end result (lower pollution) by changing regulations for these industries?

I am very wary of giving our coporatist government the impetus and support required to create a new tax system. I have serious doubts that it would be implemented in a way that truly benefits the people of the country. I can see the undue influence of our political system's sponsors and lobbyists creating something that does not work as advertised and our elected officials telling us "you will need to pass it to see what is in it," yet again. Then, once it is passed and we start to see the poor results and broken promises hearing "nobody knew that energy policy could be so complicated."

Am I just too distrusting? Do you have faith that the US government would implement a sweeping new taxation policy in a way that doesn't end up fleecing the US electorate?

Comment Re: Louisiana is one big sinkhole (Score 1) 306

So we, the citizens, own the air. And the government will tax corporations that put CO2 and other pollutants into our air. Then, those corporations will raise their prices to cover the cost of the tax.

So we, the citizens who own the air, will be paying to have our air polluted. ...........!

This is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard of.

Comment Re: BETRAYAL (Score 1) 369

Surprised but not surprised you got modded down. You pointed out a moderate position, in that some of the people who voted in the last election were neither crazy liberals nor crazy conservatives. This does not jibe with the liberal ideals of "everyone who thinks different than us enjoys hurting women, children, the downtrodden, and minorities." The people who think this way are incredibly vitriolic and vituperative, and do not recognize when their diatribes are alienating the very people they need to accomplish their goals. Apparently they would rather attack people than try to convert or engage them, thus the vote down for a moderate position.

I long for the days when being a liberals opposed rather than espoused oppression, stood up for freedom instead of trampling on the freedom of others, and had at the center of their being a bleeding heart that oozed a decidedly squishy kind of love for everyone. As sappy as it was, it was light years better than the feces slinging rage monkeys that have taken over the party today.

+1 Fnord for the Illuminatus! reference.

Comment Re:BETRAYAL (Score 1) 369

And he would have learned zero about running large organizations, created no jobs, and added no value except to himself and his brokers.

I don't like the guy, but I can see the desire to take some capital and through sweat and tears create something of your own. I can see how it has shaped him, his own desire and his journey through different companies, bankruptcies, the spotlight, etc. His efforts earned him a spot in the White House. Mere investment would not have resulted in the same man. It would certainly not have resulted in the presidency.

I am not defending Trump here. I am calling out your criticism of him as short sighted and misguided.

There are plenty of other reasons to bang on the guy. The one you picked is just kind of stupid. You just said he should have never worked a day in his life. Some people find hard work virtuous. Many look at trust fund babies and inheritance based investors as a plague, not something to be respected.

I see his choice to work his ass off as a feather in his cap, not the other way around.

Comment Re:Its pretty important... (Score 3, Insightful) 306

No. No it won't. The people who work these jobs live on the coast and since the Gulf of Mexico has a rather long coast that stretches from, well "Mexico" all the way to the tip of Florida I'm sure somebody in this world is going to work these jobs and continue to live on the coast. For that matter if the coast moves inland how is that supposed to prevent people from living near the coast (You don't actually think all of these people live on the beach do you?). Yes, the existing coastline changes. It continues to change and will keep changing. Nothing is going to stop that from happening entirely but lots of people live near the coast in Louisiana and will never be affected by this to any great degree. Seafood doesn't even factor into this. "More" ocean is supposed to translate into less seafood? Seriously?

Comment Re:TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! (Score 1) 256

I voted for him. I got what I wanted too. I got a SC Justice appointed, maybe one or two more on the way, and Hillary Clinton isn't appointing any of those. I have to admit that I thought we'd have sent Trump packing for Pence by now but otherwise I'm great with it. This is hilarious and I'm starting to think that I hope this show gets renewed for another 4 seasons. Funniest 91 days on TV I can remember in a long time.

Slashdot Top Deals

Too much of everything is just enough. -- Bob Wier