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: OMG that's a dodgy check (Score 1) 325

Here's the problem I have with this:

Program Expenses
(Percent of the charityâ(TM)s total expenses spent on the programs and services it delivers)

This doesn't say exactly what those expenses ARE, because it could well be that they spend 95% of their "program expenses" on admin, salaries, bribes, and various other overhead, and that only 5% actually trickles down to the nominal recipients.

This is something I became aware of while perusing tax info from a particular class of charities -- where "administrative expenses" is typically charity-speak for "owner's salary"... explaining why "administrative expenses" tends to be an upper-five to lower-six figure number even for charities that are basically one-man bands.

Comment Re:Different election this time? (Score 1) 325

Someone pointed out that if Trump actually had a proper collection of skeletons, they'd already be on parade... if one jock-talk tape is the best they can do (at least, with documentation so the tale can't be promptly refuted by genuine witnesses) there probably isn't anything all that terrible waiting to be unearthed.

Comment Re: Can't read my posts either. Strange obsession (Score 1) 548

Nope, just tired of crappy ad hominem arguments that don't actually say anything beyond "we're right, you're wrong". Give me reasons and rationale and hard data (and I don't mean conveniently doctored data, like Mary Koss did), not just BS, and I'll listen. I might even change my mind, like I did on basic income -- once hard facts got laid out, not just leftist whining about their mythical notions of equality.

But hey, keep that bag over your head and complain how everyone else is in the dark.

Comment Re:Can't read my posts either. Strange obsession (Score 1) 548

I've noticed it's the other way around: When liberals say something crappy, we're supposed to take it in the spirit, not the letter. But when conservatives say the same crappy thing, we're supposed to take it as the letter, not the spirit. Oh, and when a liberal says something over the top, it's just hyperbole, but when a conservative says the same thing, it's literal.

If conservatives are insisting that their words be taken at face value, maybe it's because they're tired of liberals twisting 'em like this.

And the sexism/racism seems to be almost exclusively the province of the SJWs, and they're very public about it, but woe unto anyone else saying the same things.

Heads we win, Tails you lose.

Comment Re: Can't read my posts either. Strange obsession (Score 1) 548

I think you're being disingenuous. We not only don't want someone picked on the basis of their skin color, we don't want "liberal" justices, and we're not going to fall for this bait-and-switch.

And did a quick skim through his Wikipedia entry and nope, I don't want Merrick Garland either, I don't care if he's black, white, green, or plaid. Go find someone who judges per the Constitution, not from the regulatory POV.

Thomas Sowell:

Comment Re:Minefield (Score 1) 548

Pretty much what I've observed as well. Have you seen the videos on this topic from Black Pigeon Speaks? They lay out how women mostly vote for security over liberty (which is just biology at work, security being more important for maximal offspring survival), and that this eventually erodes and curtails liberty. -- BPS doesn't just rant, he links documentation.

Slashdot Top Deals

The confusion of a staff member is measured by the length of his memos. -- New York Times, Jan. 20, 1981