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:Hillary! and guns? (Score 4, Interesting) 706

"“I know we are a smart enough nation to figure out how you protect responsible gun owners' rights and get guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them,” Mrs. Clinton replied."

Except that if that were true, then Clinton and the left wouldn't be constantly trying to ban a class of scary-looking rifles that are used in less murders than knives or even fists. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...

Compare 'rifles' to knives, blunt objects, or fists.

Comment They have their uses, but in limited situations. (Score 2) 170

I've used a tablet to take notes, read books, do research, keep kids busy, surf the net etc over the last 6 or so years (I have a gen 1 Galaxy Tab 8.1)

The only thing I still use it for is reading books, and occasionally as an ODBII reader with Torque. It hasn't replaced anything, it's just another computer I use in situations where a smartphone isn't big enough (or I need the smartphone for something else) and a laptop is too big.

Comment Re:Where are the robots from? (Score 1) 1023

Common and popular myth, but still a myth.

The Jobs Don't Shift Upwards. If 100 people are displaced by robots, only 10% may find jobs making/fixing the robots. The other 90% are displaced into the labor supply, which lowers wages.

Robots/Automation for existing jobs Must Be Stopped.

If not outright halted, then either tax it so goddamn much it's not economically viable, or make robots/automation programs forbidden for corporations to own - let people own robots on a 1-1 basis. Sure, you can hire my robot for $50k/year + medical (for me) + service plan (for robot).

Comment Re:That's a relief! (Score 2, Informative) 88

There's a problem all right, but it's not a gun problem. It's a failure to address the real problems (poverty, education, etc), coupled with a 'whitewashing' of the predominate demographic/cultural characteristics of the perpetrators. This is a problem with idiotic Democrats, who seem to think that removing weapons will solve the problem, and this is a problem with Republicans (and Libertarians) that worship rampant capitalism without any checks and balances of social welfare

The general myth that more guns = more violence is not supported by any real-world examination. The only place you can find such claims are in statistically overtweaked research put out by biased sources.

Case in point:
Total murders 1980 - over 20,000. Number of firearms in America - ~170mil. US Population 220mil.
Total Murders 2014 - ~15,000. Number of firearms in America - ~350mil . US Population 320mil.

100 Million more people, 180 million more firearms. 25% less murders.

Arguing that more guns = more murders/violence simply can't be supported, because over the last 35 years that theory has been completely disproven. It's a complete farce, just like the 'Video game and violence' theory, which again is disproved simply by looking at how youth violence has decreased by over 50% since 1990 (FBI), while violent video games have become one of the most profitable entertainment mediums today.

Go look at any of the gun violence sites that plot the incidents on an actual map. You will quickly see that the vast vast majority of gun violence (not suicides) occur in predominately in low-income, low-education areas of large metropolitan regions that are also predominately inhabited by minorities (and of that, predominately black.) Even if you try to point out 'white' states like Nebraska, Oklahoma, or even Minnesota have crime issues, you will still find the above claim regarding the overall demographics to be true.

Suicides are the other 'big lie' by the Anti-Gun crowd. 2/3rd of gun deaths are suicides, but the idea that reducing firearms reduces suicides is not supported. (There is a study out there that says reducing guns reduces gun suicides, but that's like saying removing electricity reduces electrocutions)
In fact, the US has lower or equivalent suicide rates to countries that have strict gun control. Removing guns will just change the method, not the outcome.

Guns are a strawman and the NRA is just a boogieman to a group of people who can't look up basic numbers, understand basic research methods, or think past their organic, probiotic, cave-man, paleo-vegan diet.

Comment Re:Why does it need to be political at all? (Score 2, Insightful) 702

This is a fantastic writeup of examples by steveha that demonstrates the very problem - the cliquish pseudo-academic types have been screaming their bloody heads off, acting like American millenials. They're hypocritical and mindless, and if they don't get their way they resort to name-calling and claiming that the other side gamed the system.

steveha used Baen as an example, and it serves perfectly. Baen has long published some of the most libertarian 'right-wing' authors, but in those books they've had the strongest female characters along with the widest variety of ethnic backgrounds and sexual orientations I've come across. The problem is that they're set in worlds in which hard work, rugged individualism, independence, logic, - all those 'right-wing' and/or 'conservative' values - rule the day.

Comment Re:Meaningless (Score 1) 138

100% True. Plus you have to realize that all resources consumed by the city have to be transported in. I've looked at a few studies regarding city vs rural resource usage and pollution and they regularly misunderstand and/or misattribute resource usage.

If 90% of meat/grain/food consumption is in cities - where 90% of humans reside - then 90% of the production costs - including wastes and transportation/fuel - should be included on the 'city' side of the ledger, but it's often not.

Most city dwellers don't realize that if the shit were really ever to hit the fan in a TEOTWAWKI-type situation, they'd be the first to die. Resources like food/water would dry up before they managed to walk out of the city.

Comment Re: wonder why (Score 1) 688

"Republicans tend to like to obstruct, and get nothing done, they are generally assholes, and many are about as close to Mr. Burns as you can be without being a yellow cartoon character."

Myth. In general, they resist over-exuberant use of law as a tool to change society. SOMETIMES that's a bad thing, but more often than not, restraint and patience pay off. We have too many laws, so many that most arn't even enforced these days, and the impetus to make a new law is because of some media-manufactured crisis, is it so bad to be 'conservative' on this?

  They may or may not be assholes any more than any other group, that seems to be an arbitrary label depending on whether or not you agree with them.

As for Mr. Burns, FYI Democrats get richer, faster, than Republicans in congress.

Slashdot Top Deals

Natural laws have no pity.