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

 



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

Comment Re:Are we there yet? (Score 1) 196

Because Bitcoin is not a currency according to previous legal rulings and the IRS seems to be treating it however would advantage them in any given instance

Tax, as far as I know, should be paid on any transaction that results in somebody receiving something of real value. I don't know if bitcoin falls into that category, but in most countries, if you receive payment in kind, you still have to pay tax of the value, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. So whichever way you turn it, it is reasonably that the revenue services know; bitcoin doesn't need to be "currency" or legal tender, it doesn't even have to be inherently valuable (if that even has any meaning) it only needs to have a trade value.

Comment Re:or how about less sugar anyways? (Score 1) 305

...anyone that actually likes chocolate likes a good dark chocolate that is already not as sweet

Funny enough - I like chocolate to be either quite light milk chocolate or very dark, 90%. I find the 60% - 85% ones too sweet in combination with the bitterness.

Comment Re:Nestle (Score 5, Funny) 305

Yes I agree, I live in central Europe and if you ever have tasted LÃderach (Swiss) or Bachhalm or Zotter (Austrian) you would not touch any Nestle dreck with a 10 ft pole.

If you really lived in Central Europe, you would know that Poles, although excellent people, rarely get that tall.

Comment Re:Thoughtcrime (Score 1) 363

Yeah, people like you like to play the 1984 card, but it is getting a bit worn along the edges.

The threat from things like radicalism of various sorts, or from pedophiles (as brought up elsewhere in this thread), is similar to an infectious disease: if left to fester, it spreads amongst the most vulnerable in society, like the young and disenfranchised. So, apart from the question of whether having dangerous thoughts should be considered a crime or not, there is the harm that their presence as a "disease of society" does; and in any epidemy, the first thing you do is quarantaine to try to limit the spread. This is not because being ill is a crime, but because being infectious constitues a danger, and society needs time to take appropriate measures to stop more outbreaks; such as clearing the slums or digging sewers, if you will. In a similar way, it is very hard to improve lives for the angry, young men, who are now becoming terrorists, as long as the radicalisation epidemic is raging.

Comment Re:Thoughtcrime (Score 0) 363

There is no evidence that viewing child porn causes the consumer to commit more child abuse, and some evidence that it is preventative.

Really? As the many, very serious cases that have been all over the news, at least here in UK, like the Jimmy Savill case and others, pedophile predators cause immense harm that cripples the survivors for life. Many pedophiles, if not most, don't see themselves as needing help with their problem - they don't think they have a problem, it is society that "just doesn't get it". And just like pornography has never really been anything other than a poor substitute for the real thing, watching child porn or using a plastic doll is only ever something that can, at best, take the edge off. That might be a help, if you feel strongly that you have a serious problem, but it is not my impression that most pedophiles see it that way.

Apart from that, production of child porn is not likely to limit itself to just animations and fantasies, is it? I don't think so - possession of child porn is very often evidence that you are an active pedophile, or that you are moving in that direction, and that you are not likely to seek help, unless you are forced to do so.

We often punish pedophiles just for seeking psychological help.

I assume you have the evidence to back this up? Could you point us to it, please?

Comment Re:Twitter, aka @Jack, doesn't care about hate spe (Score 1, Insightful) 1006

Yeah, I'm pretty sure SJW's will still be free to call every Trump support a racist, sexist, homphobe

SJW? You say it as if it is an insult; I think having the courage and decency to stand up for what you know is right, being willing to put yourself on the line to speak out for the weakest and working towards a fairer and better society, are things to be proud of.

It would be easy for me to just go "Well, if you don't want to be called racist, don't be one"; but if you feel that your views are always being rejected, despite being well thought out, perhaps it is something in the way you present them? Fire and brimstone doesn't persuade - it just alienates. That is why I try to stick to measured arguments and facts; not that I always succeed, but when I do, people quite often listen and sometimes even agree. And sometimes I have to change my mind too, if I realise that my views are wrong.

Comment Re:Trump is love (Score 2, Informative) 1006

Honestly, how stupid is Twitter's management? Here is one person who has helped Twitter actually eclipse the MSM, despite the fact that nobody want to buy them, and this is how they wanna treat him? Go right ahead, and he can dry up the Twitter swamp.

I think perhaps twitter look a bit wider and further ahead than to whether Trump and his followers want to use it; you guys are still a minority in the wider world, where twitter allegedly has some of its business. And of course, once he becomes president, his popularity is going to decline, we all know that, I think, because he is not going to deliver what his followers want, and the rest will see their expectations of his perceived incompetence confirmed. All in all, it won't matter whether he stays.

On another note, come Jan 20, Trump will own both @RealDonaldTrump as well as @POTUS. Now, they may ban the former, but will they ban the latter as well?

Of course - why not? Being the president doesn't entitle you to behave like a bigger moron than the average user - on the contrary. Just look to what the public did to Mr Clinton over his extramarital affairs, not to mention the impeachment: both were for things that would have merited very little in terms of legal machinery, had he not been president. Even bog standard celebrities are subject to scrutiny and criticism far beyond what ordinary people experience - why should Trump not be put through the wringer, then? If he doesn't like it, maybe he should retire to a more protected role suitable to his abilities.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have never seen anything fill up a vacuum so fast and still suck. -- Rob Pike, on X.

Working...