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


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

Comment Re:Don't give him ideas (Score 0) 549

Here you go you stupid shit.

I used his search above, "Clinton don't talk to military", and added "-trump" when the first page of results were all about Hillary Clinton instead of Bill Clinton.

That link was the third link after that very simple search. You stupid shit.

Comment Re:Everyone's demanding higher pay (Score 1) 304

I'm not the one who thought up that situation. I was just showing how much money it was. Notice I finished my post with an example of what I thought would help the situation, building cheaper housing that let 4 guys share rent.

I don't know why so many people in the cities want to each have their own apartment at $2000 a month. But I am tired of hearing people complain about how expensive it is.

Comment Re:Everyone's demanding higher pay (Score 1) 304

Depends on the job. If it's something anyone with a pulse can do, then there's no real skill or reason for great pay.

There is a reason: basic respect for the person doing the job. Asking someone to work two full-time jobs just to be able to split the rent on a single apartment and still need food stamps is dehumanizing.

Two full time jobs would produce quite a good monthly income. Using $8/hr as a wage, that would be $8 x 40 hours x 4 weeks x 2 jobs. That's $2560 before taxes.

If the person is splitting rent with a roommate, and the roommate works the same schedule, they have $5000 a month income to pay rent and buy food.

It seems like you would be doing more good by buying land in various locations, and building cheap apartments that let 4 guys share rent on one space. Then they can use their excess money to buy beer, and keep their girlfriends happy with cheap baubles.

Comment Re:Everyone's demanding higher pay (Score 1) 304

I'm of the opinion that anyone doing full-time work deserves a wage to live on. Meager living fine, but enough for a roof over one's head and food in one's mouth.

Fine. You start a business, and pay all your workers with that idea in mind. Make sure it's a large business with dozens of employees performing common jobs that don't require much skill. Pay them what you feel is fair.

Come back after it goes bankrupt, and let us know what you found out.

Comment Re:I'll always remember him best for Barney Miller (Score 2) 67

Don't forget Abe Vigoda's part in that episode. His character, Fish, had a brownie or two, and felt really good. He drags in a young guy that he arrested, and the guy is going on about how the old man chased him down, over rooftops and jumping between buildings. Then Fish finds out there is hash in the brownies, and looks sad. They as him why he's sad, and he says, "It's the first time in years I feel good, and it's illegal."

Comment Re:You misunderstand the point of it. (Score 1) 1424

urban/rural split.

The focus on this is a laughable anachronism. The urban/rural split was a big deal when large sections of the populace was agrarian and famines still happened from time to time. Also, the free vs. slave state thing was a big deal. Nowadays, there is no reasonable argument for making one vote from a rural citizen more power than one vote from an urban citizen.

I like how you are open minded about the opposing viewpoint concerning the Electoral College. You obviously intend to listen to detractors with respect and a desire to hear opinions that don't correspond with your own.

The former slave states can keep their two senators apiece, that's fine, but there's no reasonable justification for giving them more influence over the presidency.

Maybe I spoke too soon.

Remember the Florida recount in the Bush-Gore 2000 election? If the presidency were decided by the POPULAR vote you'd have to recount the WHOLE COUNTRY in such a situation.

Um, no. He won by half a million on the nationwide stage, i.e. not enough to demand a recount. Everyone admitted that Gore won. Furthermore, even if this weren't the case, saving us the trouble of a larger recount has got to be one of the worst conceivable justifications I've ever heard for the electoral college.

You misunderstand the purposes of the electoral college.

Obviously, it is you who misunderstand it: Alexander Hamilton described the framers' view of how electors would be chosen, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated [tasks]."

There are probably better quotes available if I kept digging but that's the essence of it right there: electors were NOT expected to blindly vote based on their constituency. There's a reason why there is no such compulsion at the federal level, and no compulsion at all in 21 states. Many of the founding fathers were distrustful of straight, unalloyed democracy.

The electoral college was one of many firewalls designed to prevent mob rule from getting out of control.

How did you just type those two paragraphs without realizing that doing away with the EC will guarantee the straight unalloyed democracy and mob rule you seemingly wish to avoid?

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've finally learned what `upward compatible' means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes." -- Dennie van Tassel