Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Make America Great (Score 1) 619

because equality has come to code for equality of outcome. equality of opportunity is something we pretty much already have.


economic mobility is a pretty good indicator for that. and the US is pretty good at that.

modern day, chobani, in the past, carnegie.

and before all else, more important than each of those is equality before the law.

Comment Re:Taxes are for dummies (Score 1) 903

meh, cheap little pushback to assad and russia. isolationist is isolationist, it doesn't mean abandoning our commitments altogether.

we've got our eye on russia and syria, don't try to pull a fast one and we'll be fine. and that goes double for you north korea and china.

the american in office is a shoot first ask questions never kind of guy, so watch your step.

i'm willing to pay for a 59 cruise missile message to the non-friendly actors that the tone has officially changed in washington.

oh, and you get to send a message against the gassing of children. so, win win.

Comment Re:Taxes are for dummies (Score 1) 903

rhode island rates for 2015.


ignore the misleading stuff of 20 bucks an hour, that's at its maximum for a single mother with 2 children. wellfare can provide the equivalent of that.

"looking only at the welfare, food stamp and Medicaid programs that, they said, nearly all poor people would be eligible for. Cato found that the value of just those benefits was equivalent to being paid $17,347 a year, or $8.34 an hour."

which apparently is like 66 cents less than full time minimum wage. which begs the question, why get a job when they're paying you for existing?

the welfare state is your answer.

Comment Re:God Dammit (Score 1) 450

he could have been confirmed easily, for a "liberal seat". they would have rejected him in a straight up and down... because the optic would have been bad, of them rejecting a qualified judge... but it would have been worse, putting a moderate in scalia's seat.

so mcconnell said, 'we're not playing your fucking game, we're not even going to consider it. come again after you win the election.'

Comment Re:Merrick Who? (Score 1) 450

you throw around 'constitutional duty' like that means something. please clarify what you think the relevant passage actually means.


i'd think you'd be a little more worried about executive discretion


i don't care if you're left or right or middle, the president doesn't does not and should not have the power to unilaterally ignore laws. vis a vis obama's daca and dreamer's stance, i'm on the right...ish. i'd consider myself a liberal, but the left pulled the hell to the left and now i'm left center-right. regardless... if the president has the authority to unilaterally ignore the enforcement of entire laws passed by congress... it's not good. the legislature of our country does not pass suggestions. if you want to rewrite immigration laws. pass a fucking law. if you can't pass a fucking law because you don't have the votes, convince people and win a fucking election.

i support gorsuch, i want our government to run within the bounds of their constitutional powers. i think they've worked pretty well and don't want them to be simply 'suggestions.' judicial activism is bad, executive overreach is bad. power should lie with the people, and the people's house is the closest we can get to that... not a single person, and not 9 unelected life-time appointments. the men and women who have to go back to THE PEOPLE every two years and make the case that they're not fucking up, and sometimes those fuckers in the senate.

Comment Re:God Dammit (Score 3, Insightful) 450

stole from whom? up or down vote, garland would have lost, i can almost guarantee it. biden suggested, before he left the senate that the appropriate course of action for supreme court nominees after the election season commenced was to wait until after the election to confirm. democratic obstruction of bush nominees initially started the fillibustering of judicial nominees in the circuit courts, which the republicans turned around and used on the democrats during obama's term. after which the democrats got fed up with the obstruction and killed the fillibuster for lower court confirmations. yet during that period kagan and sotomayor were confirmed without a hitch.

was it legal to neglect to hear garland? yes. was it right, as right as any of the political maneuvering in washington.

mcconnell gambled, and everybody thought he was a fool because if hillary won, it would have been someone politically left of garland for that seat. but he won his bet.

constitutionally, it was well within mcconnell's powers to refuse to hear garland. it's been done before, about 150 years ago.

it was the democrats that killed the fillibuster. don't forget that, the only reason it didn't cover supreme court nominations was because none of the supreme court nominations were fillibustered.

Comment Re:It's become derogatory? (Score 1) 416

impartiality is impartiality. if they're banning people or punishing people in an obvious way or a perceived way, how exactly does one lose the verified status if its only implication is that you are who you say you are, then their claim of impartiality is on its face invalid.

at that point, one could make the argument that any speech on their platform is tacitly endorsed because it is not removed.

hell, if they were kicking off republicans disproportionately say, i think you could make a case that it is an in-kind donation to the democratic party. they are and have been selectively enforcing their stated rules.

their defense boils down to, in my mind, we can't monitor all of our users, and providing the platform for people to engage is a net societal good. now, if i see that they are monitoring and silencing some users and not others, then that falls apart. next time someone organizes a protest that gets violent, could the aggrieved party not sue twitter for complicity? because if they are selectively enforcing their policy, wouldn't it make sense to selectively enforce it against violent elements?

safe harbor protections are an earned privilege of neutrality.

Comment Re:The truth (Score 1) 416

it's the ctrl left.

should i tolerate islamic sexism? if i criticize it will i be called an islamophobe? should i question the 80 cents on a dollar? would i be called sexist if i do? should i ask questions about the statistics of black on black violence? will i be called racist if i do? should i make a distinction between how i feel of legal immigration and illegal immigration? will i be called xenophobe if i do?

they are controlling the 'acceptable' narrative of life in the united states, because asking questions of that narrative will get you physically assaulted.

Comment Re:It's become derogatory? (Score 4, Insightful) 416

i think his point was. if you adopt the role of mediating who is and who isn't deserving of a checkmark, dependent in part of your approval of their ideological position and not purely as a verification, per removal of check-marks putatively for behavior as a punitive measure, then you necessarily also adopt the responsibility of failing to moderate certain individuals.

as someone else pointed out. if twitter wants to moderate its user's behavior so be it, but in doing so they jeopardize or sacrifice any claim they have to safe harbor as telecomms.

you can't moderate your users and then claim to be a simple impartial facilitator of communication.

Comment Re:Berkley didn't do this to be jerks (Score 1) 555

government and society certainly have a duty to the disabled in Mr. Harmon's case, and it's admirable that he is doing something productive and valuable with his time. but that's also government and society, what exactly are we paying them for if they're foisting that responsibility onto each institution or private entity that comes in contact with mr. harmon and people like him?

the two questions i have are, what is the most fiscally responsible solution, and who pays for it?

give him interpreter services sure, government can contribute to that and you can argue they should. make every good and service in the united states that that person could potentially come in contact to, 'disability-proof' for all known disabilities? that is a waste of money and labor and fiscally irresponsible but that is the intent of the law.

the ADA makes exception for financially burdensom actions. that a entity has more than enough means to cover an action and won't be forced to close... does not make the action more cost-effective or more wise. even the law has provision in the case where accommodation with its provisions would be ruinous to the enterprise, because it's better for society to have a non-compliant business and product than to have no product at all.

Slashdot Top Deals

This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks.