Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:This confirms my previous speculation (Score 1) 423

Personally, I agree. But I know too many people who are willing to take the risk of Trump just to stick a finger to Clinton and DNC. I think it's foolish, but nevertheless, if there are enough of them, it may just add up.

Of course, the other side has a similar problem. Which is why I think that it's basically a contest of who can motivate more to show up to vote against the other guy. And given the potential consequences, I'd rather not take chances, even when small quantities of votes are at stake. Brexit should be a lesson to us all.

Comment Re: as someone who is suffering from this... (Score 1) 222

Libertarianism is not just any limited government. It's government limited to those functions that are necessary to maximize individual liberties (or individual negative rights, to be more specific).

Libertarians also believe that all people, not just those that happened to be born in a "right" country, have said rights.

Now, go ahead and explain how government-sponsored economic protectionism (which borders are, at least in the context of this discussion) maximizes individual rights and liberties.

Comment Re:Anything incriminating? (Score 1) 423

Take this email, for example:

If this were two Hillary campaign staffers discussing it, it would be very sleazy, but not blatantly wrong.

The problem is that it's two DNC staffers. Since DNC effectively organizes the primaries on federal level, they're supposed to be neutral. Instead, we see people not only expressing a clearly non-neutral opinion on one of the candidates, but they are actually plotting to do something that would benefit one candidate by hurting another.

Contrasted with the official DNC claim that they were, indeed, neutral, this is pretty damning. Not illegal, most likely, but as far as reputation goes, it's going to hurt. And Clinton will be affected by it as well, simply because she was the beneficiary of it.

Comment Re:So what is YOUR plan? Better economics (Score 1) 406

Impartial journalism is a fantasy. But with multiple sources, we can at least hope that their biases more or less cancel out. Even if it's not the case, at least as far as reporting (vs not reporting) on facts alone, various competing sources will offer a more complete picture, as well as pointing each others' inaccuracies - I can then piece the facts together myself to get something much closer to what's actually going on, and think for myself instead of relying on their analytics.

OTOH, with a single agency in charge of reporting on a particular topic, the only facts that I get is that which this agency chooses to report. I don't think I could ever trust such a thing to give me a sufficiently accurate picture, especially on a topic as political as that. There would also be extreme temptation for various power players (governments, wealthy private individuals and organizations etc) to try to shape the picture by influencing that agency behind the scenes. Again, they do it today with media outlets, but so long as they cannot do it with all of them at once on a particular topic, just one is enough to get some inconvenient facts out.

Comment Re:Another day, another idiot (Score 1) 406

For what it's worth, Judaism didn't declare Levitical law invalid. They just created so many constraints around the more sinister applications of it that it's practically impossible to apply in practice. Which might provide a template for how this should be approached in Islam - rather than convincing them that stoning for adultery is a bad idea, convince them to raise the bar for its application, until it disappears in practice.

Comment Re:So what is YOUR plan? Better economics (Score 1) 406

This only works if you trust said group of journalists to provide unbiased reporting (and not to e.g. omit facts as "irrelevant"). I'm not sure whether such an agreement can be achieved. For example, many right-wing-oriented media outlets make it a point to underscore the religion and ethnicity of the attackers, while some left-wing-oriented outlets omit or obfuscate them. Can they agree on a single unified reporting standard? If they do, will the audiences be happy?

Comment Re:I want to like Donald. (Score 1) 268

On gay marriage, they have changed their tune from "it's evil and should be banned" (remember DOMA, and all the talk about the marriage amendment back in 90s?) to "let the states decide". As Republicans always do on every matter where they find themselves outnumbered on the federal level.

Also, they really want to overturn Roe, and the only way they can do so at this point is by appointing a very specific type of judges to SCOTUS. Such judges are very likely to overturn Obergefell, as well.

Comment Re:I want to like Donald. (Score 1) 268

Not all Republicans hold these views, but most do.

And furthermore, one curious thing that the polls highlight, is that Republicans are far closer to each other on all these issues than Democrats. Which is not really surprising - they have been the doom-and-gloom "we're losing our country" party for the past few decades, and so they're much more prone to wagon circling.

Slashdot Top Deals

Center meeting at 4pm in 2C-543.