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:I want capsule apartments (Score 1) 163

Japan has 'capsule hotels'. I figured they could be cheap housing for the poor.

Unless capsule hotels somehow magically cure mental illness and substance abuse, they will do little to solve "homelessness", which is a far deeper problem than mere lack of housing.

I have been to Tokyo many times, and have used the capsules. They are nice, and work well when people are quiet, clean, and respectful. They would not work well with typical homeless people, talking back to the voices in their heads, refusing to bathe, arguing and fighting with each other, and vandalizing the capsules.

I have also been "homeless" in America. When I first moved to Silicon Valley, I bought a used van for $4k, fixed it up, and lived in it for 2 years while I built up my savings to buy a house. My employer provided toilets, showers and a kitchen, and gave me permission to park overnight, which was a win-win because that meant I was available when the server crashed at 2am. I later sold the van for slightly more than I had paid for it. Now I am far from a typical homeless person, but I "solved" my homeless problem for a net cost of $0, and any halfway functional person could do the same. The real problem with homelessness is that most of them are not halfway functional, and any "cure" for homelessness needs to account for that.

Comment Re:fallacy (Score 1) 172

No, what they mean is they test it by feeding it the data from 1995, then comparing its predictions to what the weather was actually like in 1996.

Sure, and when one algorithm doesn't work, you try another, and another, and another. Then after 19 failures, you find an algorithm that works on the data from 1995 to predict 1996 weather with a 95% confidence level.

You can do the same thing with jelly beans.

Comment Re:I'm a socialist (Score 2) 416

The goal, by and large, is to stop the mass shootings and suicides.

Mass shooting are less than 0.1% of gun deaths, and are the least likely to be stopped by gun control. Norway, with very tight restrictions on firearms, had a far bigger mass shooting that has ever happened in America. Mass shooters go to extreme measures to acquire guns, they plan and execute their attacks dispassionately, and they tend to use "assault" weapons. Most "normal" shootings are with handguns, and are unplanned and emotionally driven.

Focusing on the 0.1% instead of the 99.9% is silly when the two have little to do with each other.

If we thought we could get the right wing to pay for mental health services we'd all shut the hell up about guns.

Adam Lanza, Seung-Hui Cho, Syed Farook, and Anders Breivik had no criminal records. None of them were under psychiatric care. If you rounded up a million crazy people that might be a danger, they wouldn't have been on the list. It was only after the fact that everyone agreed that they were nuts.

Comment Re:Messenger (Score 1) 346

No. It was the story of the century.

There were many bigger stories during the 20th century. Even on the topic of corruption in American politics, Watergate wasn't the biggest. The wholesale cheating by JFK and LBJ during the 1960 election, especially in Illinois and Texas, was much bigger, and actually made a difference since the 1960 election margin was razor thin. They stole the election ... from Nixon ... and the press (mostly) ignored it. Watergate had no effect on the 1972 election. It would have been a landslide with or without cheating.

Comment Re:You're being silly (Score 3, Interesting) 416

The evil libtardos aren't coming for your guns.

You need to talk to some liberals. I live in the SF Bay Area, so I talk to plenty of them. Some lean libertarian, and support (or at least tolerate) gun rights. But most lean authoritarian, and think guns should be completely illegal for private citizens. No one, absolutely NO ONE that I have ever met, thinks all we need is to close the "gun show loophole" and then everything will be hunky-dory. Politically, it is always about "just one thin little slice", but the real goal is the whole salami.

Comment Re:gloves? (Score 5, Insightful) 416

Gloves are only one of many problems with this re-tread idea. If fingerprint enabled guns are such a great idea, then they obviously should be adopted first by the police and military. That has zero chance of happening, because the real goal is not "safety" but to make guns more expensive and less reliable thereby disincentivizing ownership, while giving liberals talking points about how the NRA is unwilling to accept "common sense" gun restrictions.

Comment Re: Still a justice failure (Score 4, Insightful) 76

Well it is the justice system just like it should.

Not true. Dragging someone through an expensive and time consuming legal process is often far worse than any possible judicially imposed punishment.

Some assholes _tried_ to abuse it though, and failed.

1. They abused it by spending the tax dollars, and on behalf of, the citizens of North Dakota.
2. There is (apparently) no consequences, either legally or politically, for the abusers.
This is not "as it should be".

Comment Re:s/South Dakota/North Dakota/ (Score 4, Funny) 76

As a North Dakotan, I've always suspected no one knows the difference.

I was planning to visit a friend in North Dakota, and he gave me directions to his house that included "Drive about half an hour until you see a tree, then turn left." When I asked for more specific directions, like the name of the road, he ensured me that just looking for a tree was sufficient. He was correct.


Comment Re: Nevada (Score 1) 81

If we called fossil fuels to accoubt for their cost directly, we'd be paid for coal burning,

Nobody in America is building or investing in new coal power plants. Coal is dying. So comparing solar with coal is meaningless. You need to compare it with gas, which is way cleaner and half as carbon intensive.

Comment Re: Execute branch? Legislative branch? (Score 4, Informative) 157

You have the freedom to pick who stays in your house, clearly, under freedom of assembly.

This law is about "owner not present" rentals. You can pick anyone you like to share your house, as a boarder or roommate. But you do NOT have the right to pick anyone you like as a tenant in unshared living space. Federal "fair housing" laws apply.

This NY law may be stupid (and IMO it is), but it is unlikely that a court would find it unconstitutional. There is plenty of precedent for government regulations in this area.

Slashdot Top Deals

When I left you, I was but the pupil. Now, I am the master. - Darth Vader