Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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: Violence inspires violence (Score 1) 174

No, we wont ever live in a utopia because a utopia is a fantasy. You're not going to find a single topic on which all people globally agree and you never will. That being the case, one group will always be telling others how things should be, and the others will resist the demanded change. This is not wrong, its not associated purely with wealth or religion or anything else. It's not even associated with "better", because "better" is usually subjective.

Comment Re:I still don't 'get' realistic war simulations. (Score 1) 174

I wish I had all my GI Joe action figures still. They'd be worth a lot. But alas, we blew them all to hell on a regular basis with the Blackcats, Ladyfingers and bottle rockets we bought at the nearest convenience store with our allowance.

By today's standards I'd be assumed to have grown up to be a crack-addled homicidal maniac.

Comment Re:Male hero fantasies (Score 3, Insightful) 174

So on the one hand you are normalizing violence beginning at a young age. It's just something that everyone should expect and accept. On the other hand you're teaching kids that sexuality is shameful , and hide it from them until they are older and need to start figuring it out without any context or guidance.

How is it logical to give a pass to violence with kids by saying it's "outside the normal experience" while also saying it's perfectly acceptable in society to glorify it, and telling kids at the same time that sexuality which is nearly universally something that will be part of their "normal experience" is something that they should feel ashamed of?

People seem to think it makes perfect sense to glorify the thing that we do not want people to engage in, while demonizing the thing we know they will engage in as an entirely natural and healthy part of human existence.

Comment Re:Male hero fantasies (Score 1) 174

No. I don't.

Kill someone in a movie and the hero is applauded. Show a boob and it's assumed that a boob is a dirty thing that should be hidden, and that you should feel shame at enjoying the sight of.

One teaches that killing the "bad guy" is good. The other teaches that the human body and the entirely natural and necessary function of its parts is bad.

Comment Re:I still don't 'get' realistic war simulations. (Score 1) 174

Have you actually seen many war movies? The enemies usually don't get a name, a personality, any lines... You might get one or two who have some kind of 2D, paper-thin personality, just so that the heroes have someone to give their struggle context and meaning. The vast bulk of them are just a faceless hoard, sometimes literally as these days there isn't much point putting a proper face texture on a CGI soldier who ends up being 3 pixels high.

That's precisely the point people are trying to make. How is that different than a computer game? In the movie the "bad guy's" backstory isn't fleshed out, and you feel no sympathy for the fact that he has a wife and child back home in Kiev or wherever. You don't care about his demise because you have no association with him at all. He's just part of the vague and largely undefined "bad". In a computer game the "bad guy" is the guy trying to kill you, and you him. He's a CGI character often only a few pixels high that you're lobbing artillery rounds at from 300 yards. He's a nameless, faceless target. While in a computer game you might want him dead because it up's your game score, it's not unlike the gratuitous deaths of dozens or hundreds of "bad guys" in movies to up their ratings and box office sales because the viewer feels a connection to the "good guy" who's overcome his adversaries.

But you don't see any Hollywood elitist deuchebags campaigning against violence in film, do you? You instead see hypocritical shitbrains that will lecture you on how the Second Amendment doesn't mean what you think it means, that no one (except them) have any need for firearms of any kind, and then tell you that the movies they themselves massacre dozens of bad guys with said firearms in are entirely disassociated with any kind of real world violence and it's purely entertainment.

The hypocrisy is the point.

Comment Re:Tractor Breakers, not Fixers. (Score 1) 500

Well what is a warranty? It's a promise by the manufacturer to repair or replace equipment if it fails. If you modify the equipment and it fails because of your modification, they are not liable for the failure and not held responsible for the repairs. Right? You make modifications that cause a failure then it's no longer their problem.

I will concede though that often manufacturers will claim that any modification releases them from all responsibility, regardless whether that modification has any impact whatsoever on whatever failures might have or may eventually occur. That's outside the bounds in my mind, and the law you pointed to would seem to support the notion.

Obviously there are circumstances that could lean the "right" decision to one side of the fence or the other.

Comment Re:Tractor Breakers, not Fixers. (Score 1) 500

While I will admit to not having read the legal content of the law, I did read a couple of summaries. The law you cite is primarily meant to require those companies who issue warranty agreements to clearly and unambiguously define the terms, and protect consumers from shady or deceptive warranty jargon.
One line that was up on Wiki and the meaning repeated elsewhere states:

The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.

In other words if you disassemble the product, place new/different/altered components on it, and it can be determined that those new/different/altered components caused the product to fail, then the manufacturer is not liable to repair it under warranty.

Comment Re: Liability (Score -1, Troll) 500

It takes an almost unfathomable level of stupidity to try to correlate a notion of respect for the rights of all people to live without interference, with that of elitism and brutality to take property and rights by brute force. Anyone that tells you that Somalia is an example of Libertarianism is selling you a lie, and you're an idiot if you buy it.

Comment Re: Liability (Score 0) 500

Nice to see that Rachel Maddow has at least one viewer remaining.

Libertarians just want to be left the fuck alone. They believe that if you are harmed you have every right to seek redress in the courts, but that government doesnt have the right to pass laws that mean to make it impossible to ever be guilty of causing harm. You know, that notion that you're innocent until proven guilty?

Comment Re:Tractor Breakers, not Fixers. (Score 1) 500

I'm not supporting this asinine notion that farmers cannot fix their own equipment. I'm wholly against it. I was simply responding to someone suggesting that John Deere's motivation is protecting themselves from people breaking JD equipment and then forcing JD to fix it for free. What JD is doing is trying to monopolize maintenance on all their equipment, and do it when they get around to it and at inflated costs.

Comment Re:Tractor Breakers, not Fixers. (Score 5, Informative) 500

That's a different conversation. If you modify the tractor in a way that is unsupported by the manufacturer, you void the warranty and John Deere is released from responsibility. It's not at all unlike your TV, or your cell phone, or millions of other products on the market. But what we're talking about here goes well beyond that. John Deere and other manufacturers are lobbying government to make law out of the notion that while you might have paid upward of a quarter million for that tractor (not an unusual sum with modern agriculture equipment), you don't actually own it, and you're not allowed to do anything with it that John Deere doesn't expressly allow.

Comment Re:So now under Trump... (Score 1) 341

The media refuses to cover peaceful protests?!?? Seriously? They report every single day since inauguration about a protest somewhere, but most of them completely fail to mention the burning police cars, burning limousines, smashed business windows, and people being drug out of their cars and getting the shit beat out of them. Or if they do it's a passing mention. There's absolutely shit that isnt getting reported, but it isnt the the peaceful protesters.

Slashdot Top Deals

Frankly, Scarlett, I don't have a fix. -- Rhett Buggler