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


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: Given a choice in the 70's (Score 1) 277

A grey-beard EE I knew in my LUG back in the late '90s told me stories about working to develop HDDs for mainframes, back when they were only kilobytes of storage. There was one in particular that had 6 foot platters sizes to just fit through a set of double doors; they used hydraulics to move the read heads, and had to have them in symetric pairs otherwise it would walk across the floor.

Comment Re:Take your space (Score 2) 290

They usually figure out to get on their side of the walk by the time we meet.

I like the look on their face when I stop, and they walk into shadow and then stop, and then look up... my nose.

This! So much this!
I've had people (usually college age girls) walk right into me; No clue that I was even there. The reactions are priceless.

Comment Re:That sounds nice... (Score 1) 170

Exactly. With their culture and policy of black box secrecy and the number of times they've been caught lying both to the public, as well as to their supposed bosses (congress, senate, president) is there anyone left dumb enough to believe anything they say?

I think you answered that yourself: congress, senate, president

Comment Re:I think this is bullshit (Score 1) 1746

And as long as they're not directly being a dick to you, you're supposed to exhibit some degree of tolerance, especially in the workplace.

I would say that if you are Gay and would like to receive the government benefits associated with a marriage then giving $1,000 to stopping you would fall into the category of "Being a dick to you".

I've actually proposed a solution that addresses that. Overhaul the government laws so that all "marriage" benefits are now tied to civil unions, leaving the term "marriage" reserved for purely ceremonial (religious) use. This neatly eliminates the conflict between religious definitions of marriage and government benefits tied to marriage (or lack thereof for gay couples). The benefits would be tied to civil unions instead. Every pro-gay marriage friend I suggested this to rejected it. The only acceptable solution to them was to strip the concept of marriage entirely from any religious influence, and hand complete control of it over it to those with modern secular viewpoints. I protested that this could create a conflict wherein a church could be sued for refusing to allow a gay couple to use the church for a wedding. They had no problem with this. i.e. Their stance is based on attributing no value to any religious viewpoint - they do not believe in freedom of religion.

Sounds like you need better friends; I know plenty of people who would be fine with that solution, but it's the fundamentalists I know who would still have a problem with it.

If you boot marriage back to a religious function, then you have to tolerate all the religions that would happily allow marriages between any two people (or more), and fundamentalists have once again lost control over "the sanctity of marriage".

The thing is that it's like Hindus (hypothetically) complaining about having lost control of "the sanctity of the cow".... It's all about perspective and what you find sacred.

Slashdot Top Deals

The absence of labels [in ECL] is probably a good thing. -- T. Cheatham