Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Better up the Military Budget (Score 1) 313

There are currently 60 million war refugees according to UNHCR

So either our military commanders havent kept up with whats been going on the last decade, or they can't even imagine current reality.

I understood that quote to count only refugees from Bangladesh—not worldwide.

He said one metre of sea level rise will flood 20% of his nation. "We're going to see . . . 30 million people."

Comment FTA (Score 1) 209

If readers are worried that the Cylance research spells some kind of doom, don't. US officials have already explained that attacks on the actual voting machines are almost impossible, and not something they fear. If they happen, they'll occur in one or two isolated precints, but not in a coordinated nation-wide attack.

Comment Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel (Score 1) 437

Are you willfully ignoring the context surrounding the Koch Brothers? Most people don't fault them for donating to candidates that support their position. That in and of itself is how politics works. It sucks that they can do so at such an extreme level compared to everyone else when it's supposed to be one vote for every person, but that's beside the point.

The problem is that the Kochs profit massively off of fossil fuels and have been funding any candidates that will deny climate change and thwart any meaningful discussion, investigation or mitigation of it. They are willing to compromise our species' long-term survival on this planet for their own short-term gain.

Comment Re:Damn... (Score 4, Insightful) 24

Uh, they didn't screw up with IT and accidentally expose an unsecured file server. They purposely ripped and served up DVD screeners in direct violation of their agreements. Not some automatic shrink-wrap agreement or TOS but and actual specific, legal contract signed by both parties. I have no problem with companies enforcing their contractual agreements with each other.

Of course, I didn't RTFS. Were the culprits just some innovative—er, I mean opportunistic—employees, or was there a larger internal conspiracy?

Comment Another Explosive Revelation! (Score 1) 437

The story says that Mark Zuckerberg was looking to "get in on the action a bit, and perhaps curry favor with Podesta and the Clinton camp in shaping public policy." Let's check the email they quoted.

Mark is meeting with people to learn more about next steps for his philanthropy and social action and it’s hard to imagine someone better placed or more experienced than you to help him

He’s begun to think about whether/how he might want to shape advocacy efforts to support his philanthropic priorities and is particularly interested in meeting people who could help him understand how to move the needle on the specific public policy issues he cares most about. He wants to meet folks who can inform his understanding about effective political operations to advance public policy goals on social oriented objectives (like immigration, education or basic scientific research).

Mark wants help learning how to make his philanthropic efforts more effective? What a monster! How long will we allow these billionaires to spend their fortunes trying to improve education and support scientific research? It sounds like he wants to become a more useful citizen by reaching out to people in his professional and social network—and we can't have any of that!

Comment Re:Brexit (Score 1) 377

Oh, /. How many marriages have you broken up due to your limited reply depth and how it makes it look like everyone is replying to everyone? :p

s.petry: The illegality of taking that money held in escrow for our own purposes is exactly what I was replying to you about. You can argue that we should have continued holding that money to force Iran to . . . what? Release hostages? No need, they already agreed to release them. Stop enriching uranium? They did that a few years back with the help of Stuxnet. Publicize their secret nuclear enrichment site? Too bad, they already did that too. Agree not to further their nuclear program? Yes, you win!

Now certainly, Clinton's continued agreement with the hardline hawk establishment that Iran was "weeks away" from a viable nuclear program have been debunked by everyone who knows two shits about the matter. But Trump continues to push that assessment to this day and even touts war with Iran as "Meh, no biggie."* He also says that everyone should have nukes, and we should all use them. Either he's trying to play Nixon's "madman" persona poorly, or he's a complete tool.

Bing Tsher E: My CoD comment was directed at your nonsense. Move along.

* Not an actual word-for-word quote. He probably used the phrase "grab her pussy" somewhere in there.

Comment Re:Good for him (Score 1) 255

Awesome! I'm so glad I asked for clarification rather than assume I knew what you meant. tl;dr I think we're 99% on the same page here. But I'd be remiss if I let one of the few good /. threads peter out due to agreement. :)

I thought the example I gave of the busted taillight - which could ordinarily get you a fix-it ticket but not jail time on its own - was pretty fair but I might not have fleshed it out.

It wasn't so much that as I suspect that you, as I, don't feel this is a good use of law enforcement. If someone is behaving in a dangerous manner or committing something more serious than an infraction, I'm okay with police stopping them and escalating if there is a good reason. Conversely, if they aren't, leave them alone.

This gets into unequal enforcement, stop-and-frisk, expanding infraction laws that give police an excuse to pull "everyone" over... But as we have both seen, this tends to be enforced on certain minorities more than the populace as a whole. Again, not this exact topic (percentage of incarcerated due to drugs alone), but a pressing next question once you look at who eventually gets incarcerated.

I wanted to give you the opportunity to choose a different example to see if you felt using small infractions like that was justified, but it seems we're in agreement. That still leaves the question of whether or not "a large percentage of inmates" would be released under decriminalization of cannabis or even other drugs. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers for pot alone, but the numbers above seem to answer the question w.r.t. drugs as a whole. Not the subject of this thread, but to me, the entire landscape of drug prohibition—and the vast destruction it has brought with it—is the more interesting and meaty discussion topic. :)

I have mixed feelings about street dealers. . . . [explanation of the problems they introduce] . . . Which is generally a good call for legalization, although the recreational drug industry being what it is right now I don't see it going away just because we would end up with Philip-Morris brand pot and Anheuser-Busch brand heroin.

You must ask yourself how many people have died from an overdose or drug interaction due to incorrect packaging of beer, wine and spirits combined. The answer, in my view, is the only evidence needed to argue for decriminalization and legalization of nearly every* drug—from pot to heroine. Why are people dying from bath salts? Pot is illegal and they are not. Why do we have a heroine epidemic? People are getting cut off from their legal source of Oxy.

My point is that street dealers would almost entirely disappear with regulation. I have a very small investment with a cannabis edibles company in California (I have a dog in this race, but the race is essentially won), and the amount of testing that we put into every step of the process is considerable. Each plant is randomly tested. Each batch of combined plants is again randomly tested. Each batch of oil is randomly tested. All of our confections are randomly tested. Anywhere along the way, you can pick up any product, scan its label, and track every single seed that went into it. Hell, I'd bet you can't even do that with wine and grapes. Of course, wine has been around for much less time than cannabis use.

* I view drug use on par with extreme sports. You might injure yourself severely or even die while engaging in either activity, and people will engage in both regardless of the law. Given that, why is there so much research into safety equipment and better regulations for extreme sports? The law. If reasonable people are going to engage in both activities, isn't it society's responsibility to work to make both as safe as possible and minimize the drag on society's productiveness? Prohibition has clearly devastated productivity for a large portion of society and fails the test immediately.

That it hasn't even slightly stemmed the damage from drug misuse and costs us billions of dollars annually makes this issue so one-sided for me. It's like asking, "Should we start paying women on par with men?" Is there any defensible no answer?

Okay, I rambled on quite a bit there. Blame it on the beer! Thanks for reminding me why I keep checking in to /. :)

Slashdot Top Deals

Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket. -- George Orwell