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


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re: Too secure for insecure? (Score 1) 510

Gross negligence is not merely mishandling. It's worth noting again that she pulled classified documents and information onto a private email server for years, taking no corrective action until investigations were underway.

I do not want Hillary to be President--but if right wing whackos keep making crap up instead of going after her numerous letitimate bad positions and policies, when something really, legitimately bad does come up nobody is going to pay attention. That's almost handing her a ticket to the White House.

I think it's because there is blood in the water. Clinton hasn't been caught red-handed like this before with multiple felonies. It's like Al Capone and tax evasion. Sometimes someone gets caught on a weaker crime than the main one.

Comment Re:Ban drug ad's like most developed nations do! (Score 1) 268

The problem is that a single company has a monopoly on that medicine

No, they don't - they hold a patent on the fool-proof spring-loaded syringe.

Doctors use epinephren on a regular basis, they just have to draw a dose from a medicine bottle and inject it properly. The EpiPen allows anyone to slam a dose into the leg of someone suffering without any training.

Comment Re:No, but... (Score 1) 302

You seem to have a bug up your ass about Republicans, but I don't understand it. Most Republicans in DC are indistinguishable from most Democrats, once you look past the theater to what bills actually get passed, which are whatever the billionaire donors want. Everything else is just theater, on both sides.

Not all Whig politicians were able to get re-elected as Republicans, BTW. The platforms weren't the same and some had doubled-down on increasingly unpopular ideas (otherwise, the party never would have faded). I can't predict what coalition will arise from the ashes of the GOP, but Trump proves that catering to the religious whackos has become unnecessary and pointless - it never actually mattered that Trump is pro-choice, and not particularly religious.

And yes, today's GOP is "dead party walking", unless Trump somehow wins (Hillary would have to stroke out) and even then only the name would survive. Trump supporters are furious with the GOP, and without them it's a 40% party.

And of course, there's the legal cases still working their way through the courts where various entities are arguing that even saying to the insurer (who has no practical objection to birth control, it's a cost-saver for them), that they don't want to be involved, is a burden on them, to fill out a form, saying leave us out of it.

The court cases are about filling out a government form registering your religious beliefs. I object to that too: history suggests that sort of thing never ends well.

I'll at least expect a conscientious objector to report their status to the draft board.

Different case. The rule is that the State cannot not compel you to act against your strong moral beliefs unless there's a compelling state interest and the action is the narrowest possibly to address that. Registering as a conscientious objector is a perfect example where both are true. The court found no compelling State interest in having birth control paid for by insurance (rather than, you know, money).

Be open at some hours. Be closed at others. Access for people, even service animals.

You'd be surprised by what gets waved for legitimate religious objections. A strictly kosher restaurant, for example, doesn't follow all the same rules (of course, it has rather more self-imposed).

As for birth control, if it's against your moral principles for a person under your employ to make their own choices about their reproduction

Now you're talking about a very narrow subset of Catholics, and we're effectively back to fringe cults. But if you had it as corporate policy that employees couldn't use birth control, that would be very different legally from not paying for it via insurance. The former is an undue burden on the employee, the latter isn't.

Personally, I'm against any law mandating insurance coverage in all policies for that only women in a certain age range need - that's singling out a group of privileged people for elevated legal treatment, and again history shows that sort of thing never ends well.

Comment It's fine to let companies set prices (Score 1) 268

What is not fine is to give a very long monopoly to only one company to make them... without competition the price will not naturally fall.

You have to allow some time let companies have some profits on research, but how long has the Epi-Pen been around? Long enough there should be more than one company making hem now.

Comment Re:Who gives a shit (Score 1) 137

Enough of your bad faith shenanigans. I've linked you to her articles a fucking dozen times already, you've got her full name, you know what we're talking about, either go read your own old replies or google it. This memory-of-a-goldfish bent you and amimojo have gotten on recently where you demand things you've literally been given over and over again and pretend it never happened is getting old.

Comment Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl (Score 1) 137

Because only things you agree with are facts. As usual. Then again one of the core tenets of feminism is the total rejection of the very idea of an objective knowable truth or the existence of empirical facts. The only that that matters are the "lived experiences" and feelings of the person with the most oppression points in the room.

Comment Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl (Score 1) 137

Like amimojo you're engaging in the classic tactic of trying to make it impossible to even name the group or ideology at hand, thus silencing debate. Imagine trying to argue against republican economic policies when you're not even allowed to say the words "trickle down" or "neoliberal".

"Alt-right", like "reactionary", has no meaningful definition. SJW is the response to people like you demanding we stop calling SJWs feminists even though they self-identify AS feminists. It has a specific definition, and refers to tangible actions and a describable ideology.

Comment Re:Free market (Score 1) 268

Free Market, unless you want to buy medicine, then we don't let you. Funny how, in this, like so many other issues, the "conservatives" are against a free market, and the "liberals" are for the free market.

The liberals want to set drug prices in the US, the whole "allow people to buy drugs from foreign nations" is just the whip they're using to pressure the other lawmakers to allow them to set prices to avoid opening the US pharma market.

There are no "Liberals" in Congress (using the original definition of "Liberal" which derived from "Libertarian"). Those that call themselves "liberals" are actually "Progressives" and they exist in both (D) and (R) camps.

George Bernard Shaw was one of the early proponents of Progressivism (now deliberately mislabeled "liberalism").


I highly recommend that all do their own homework and do some digging into the history of the Progressive movement.


Slashdot Top Deals

The computer can't tell you the emotional story. It can give you the exact mathematical design, but what's missing is the eyebrows. - Frank Zappa