Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:oh darn (Score 1) 522

...and instead ask "Is it moral in general to pay for prostitutes?"

Ok. No. It's not.

Prostitution is most often a choice. People have the right to make their own decisions. Forced prostitution is illegal servitude (prostitution is a symptom of the actual issue) and should be dealt with as such.

There are so many Moral Avengers in our society it sickens me. Let people do what they want to do in the privacy of their own homes. As long as people are not depriving others of their constitutionally-given rights the rest of us have no damn business telling them what they can and cannot do - if anything, that infringes on THEIR rights. Morality, religious or otherwise, is as broad as the number of individual interpretations and should not be used as the basis for laws which infringe on an individuals right to choose for themselves.

Comment Re:So much for... (Score 1) 346

...the fact you can speak anything...

Although I generally agree with you on the overall point, I must quibble with this particular statement.

There are a few things that the First Amendment does not protect and certain forms of hate speech is undoubtedly one of them. Although it is legal to have any viewpoint you choose, it is not necessarily legal to speak certain things publicly. Inciting riots or threatening another individual with physical harm are good examples of speech which is not covered by the First Amendment. Privately however, the First Amendment likely does cover these; a fine line perhaps but an important one nonetheless.

Comment Re:Well then. (Score 1) 217

The hell it isn't asshat. I quit my job and started a graphic design and web development company on the very day in 9/2008 that the stock market fell 600+ points.

I have a family and a mortgage, am self-educated with a high-school diploma and a recovering alcoholic with 11 years sobriety. Although its been super tough, my business is still here, about to celebrate 2 years, and is growing.

Those who can't/don't make it are victims of life being life in a dog-eat-dog world. The fact that I am making it against all odds and statistics is a testament to the greatness of the US and the reality of the American Dream (which absolutely still exists).

Just because an individual (you or anyone else) in this country doesn't make it doesn't mean the system doesn't work - it means that individual was either in the wrong place at the wrong time and should try, try and try again until they make it, or they simply don't have what it takes to be competitive. Our society gives equal opportunity but that doesn't mean we're all capable.

Complaints about US capitalism shine brilliant light on an individual's inability, not the system's. It's called hard work and not giving up and it works out for the majority that play the game well. The alternatives (such as socialism) are worse in reality than in real life, thanks.

Social programs are good, Socialist Government experiments fail to provide the opportunity and innovation a system like ours creates. It may not be perfect, but it sure as hell is better than pretty much any other system out there so far.

Comment Re:Unfortunately (Score 2, Interesting) 197

It's just as sad that so many asshats in our society file frivolous lawsuits making it more difficult for legit complaints to be taken seriously.

Corporate does not automatically equal lack of accountability. The bigger companies become the more difficult it becomes to manage false claims vs. legit ones. Using bad PR is a great resource to help a company perform better in the future.

That's not sad, it's just life.

Comment Re:The real question (Score 1) 311

Obviously news organizations are searching for a new news-gathering model. Perhaps one would be to not print the news direct-to-the-public but offer it to others to do. For example, instead of NYT printing a public newspaper or website, the business model changes to delay release of news articles by 12 or 24 hours and instead offer immediate access news at a premium to any organization wanting it in advance. Essentially, split the industry in two - news gatherers and news suppliers.

Journalists would have renewed incentive to break a story since it would be gold for 24 hours and only sold to organizations willing to pay to break it. I know throttling of news stories is a touchy subject for the public, however this idea isn't far from how things used to be - you had to wait until the news was printed before consuming it.

The industry issue, as far as I can see, is scarcity of time. It used to be time was a forced constraint due to current technology. It seems to me the only leverage news organizations have anymore is to use time to slow down the process (or at least until time travel is developed). A variation of this concept may be the direction news organizations need to migrate toward.

Comment Pure Fud (Score 3, Insightful) 574

Point #1: There is no porn here. The women depicted, even with a blackout bar, are obviously wearing bikini tops. The blackout bar is an obvious attempt at misleading.

Point #2: The senator obviously opened something which he immediately closed. This has happened to everyone who has ever used a computer. You are sent something, you open it, and it turns out to be something not-safe-for-work.

Point #3: For those saying he should be doing his job, you are all guilty. Everyone, admittedly or not, has read email on their mobile device in a meeting or has, at one time or another, thought about something other than work while on the clock. To suggest that because this guy is a senator that he should be super-human to something of which we are all guilty is complete flamebait.

Good grief, cut the guy some slack.

Comment Re:NSF (Score 1) 352

... they're loathe to put in any extra effort to make it work.

They're not rewarded by grants, salary, promotion, respect, or tenure for putting in any extra effort to make it work. What really matters is getting more grant money and writing new papers. They're effectively punished for spending their time doing anything else.

Comment Re: data retention now required too? (Score 4, Insightful) 352

If people cannot replicate your results it isn't science.

And with Climate Science part of the process is showing how you collected and interpreted the data. If you are not willing to share the raw data so other researchers can attempt to replicate your methods and results then don't bother publishing.

Comment Re:Gotta love... (Score 1) 1131

Timothy McVeigh David Koresh et al David McMenemy Paul Hill Michael Griffin James Kopp Rev. Michael Bray Clayton Waagner (you get the idea...) ...those peace loving Christians, eh? While it is true that the Rev. John Hagee hasn't yet called for the execution of Matt and Trey, there's plenty of religious hatred to go around. How 'bout we stop singling out this or that religion and admit that the whole lot of them, at least the ones that insist on enforcing their "faith" on the rest of us, are full of shit?

Slashdot Top Deals

When the bosses talk about improving productivity, they are never talking about themselves.