Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:No, Britain wants surveillance tools (Score 1) 113

Bullshit, the economy does not collapse without immigration. That has never happened anywhere. Wages go up and unemployment drops with vacancies, which is beneficial to current citizens of a country. A Migrant coming in and working for a month then taking all of his pay back to his home does not help the British economy in any way. In fact that month or three harms Britain, because people would work summers can't compete to get the jobs (College and High school students, recent grads unsure of a career choice, etc..). Those people would have turned around and invested the money back into the UK.

A healthy economy means increased birthrates, so no need to import people for the low skilled jobs. The low birth rate issue is a common one with all of the first world countries currently. Immigration is not the the only, or necessarily best, answer.

You can't grasp basic common sense economics, and yet you claim others of providing stupid easy answers.

Comment Re: BS (Score 1) 383

As a matter of fact, I can. No more arguing with an AC who can't handle intellectual honesty.

Actually, the process of amendment is what shows the concept of originalists to be crap, and a mere matter of propaganda by wrappings themselves in the false cloak of legitimacy that comes from trying to use the founders as the only acceptable moral compass.

Comment Re:Background and the real issue (Score 1) 383

Bruce decided to move the goal post after Orgasmatron demonstrated his position was wrong. You then claim Orgamatron should claim defeat because the goal post was moved. Not because Bruce was right on the first argument.

Hence my claim that you can't have it both ways. You are a biased 3rd wheel attempting to throw in moderation. Shame on you!

Comment Rubbish (Score 1) 383

AT&T developed Unix and early network protocols for phone services (along with IBM, Xerox, and numerous other companies). The Government piggy backed on that work and used tax dollars to create ARPAnet. Much of that work (meaning both projects) was done by Universities, but the heavy lifting especially for networking and Unix was private research. (Xerox, AT&T, Texas Instruments, IBM, etc...)

The Internet would have come about regardless of tax payer dollars. You may be able to argue that the process was expedited because of tax dollars, but there is no reason to conclude that the Internet would not exist. In fact, given the amount of proprietary (closed) network protocols of the 80s and 90s, we can say with relative certainty that the Internet would have happened anyway.

Comment Re:No, Britain wants surveillance tools (Score 3, Interesting) 113

Aaaaaaand he was a Muslim convert. What's your point? That if we hadn't imported tons of Islam he would still have converted?

Quite possibly. There is this thing called the Internet, you know.

So to circumvent the spreading of Islamic danger, we should control every form of communication? I see where this is going.

Nope, I'm saying you will never be able to stop extremism, and fascist acts such as destroying personal privacy and xenophobic/nationalistic acts such as barring all immigrants from a single specific category won't work and will end up hurting, not helping your society in the long run.

There is a sliding scale. Most Muslims in the US have integrated into society quite nicely. The UK used to be able to say the same thing. Letting a million or so come in at once and not even attempting to ensure assimilation has caused the problem. We could say the same of Germany, Poland, Sweden, and any other Country who has done the same thing as the UK.

Going a bit further, I don't believe that this is an issue with just Muslims. They happen to be the biggest influx in most of those countries so the easiest to discuss. The US has similar issues with people from South America who have no interest in integrating and hate the US. They just want the stuff the US hands out (not all of them, but there is a measurable percentage).

When people come from areas that do not have free speech and they learn the power of suppressing speech, why would you think they would want free speech when they move into your country? If people come from an area that deals with legal issues by violence, why would that immediately change in your country?

Assimilation of immigrants should be the discussion, which requires temperament with how many immigrants a Country allows.

Comment Re:You may not like this (Score 1) 383

A post-truth Fact? The Democrats, including the latest President and Candidate for the same party label(ed) anyone with a different viewpoint as a racist, homophobe, xenophobe, Islamaphobe, anti-Semite, misogynist who hates the poor and middle class. In the last year those same two democrats mentioned repeated the 0.70c on the dollar lie about women hundreds of times in every possible venue. It is impossible for anyone with any level of intellect to believe that one lie, so the only reason to perpetuate it is to divide the populace.

Those same claims of phobe and "ist" have been leveled at every single person in the Trump administration, including the Supreme Court appointee. This is not new, because the same was claimed of Romney, McCaine, Bush, and yes even Ronald Reagan.

If a Hispanic person believes border control is an issue that needs to be dealt with, Democrats call the traitors. If a woman does not believe the 70cents on a dollar lie they are traitors. If a Black person expresses a conservative or Constitutional view on anything, they are labelled an "Uncle Tom". Those are facts coming right from Democratic party member mouths!

Instead of attempting to look intelligent with claims of 'post-truth', how about you actually use truth yourself. Any truth at all would be better than your complete denial of reality. Sorry your party is that of the slave owners who started Planned Parenthood with the goal of harming the Black Race. Another truth you can find by reading Sangar. Sorry your party is full of racists who believe Byrd is a great guy to look up to. Those are facts, and truths. Truth is often harsh, especially when you devote so much effort into avoiding it.

Comment Re:"We're" loosing it? (Score 1) 368

I believe most people would agree with you, but you have to have enough mass seeing the dishonesty demanding change. Right now you have a good amount of people pointing out the dishonesty, but you have the extreme right taking advantage of the information starvation and putting up fake news. You also have people on the far left promoting fake news of the same variety trying to discredit people showing the deficit.

It's not an easy problem to tackle, but we should start by agreeing that censorship is absolutely not the solution.

Comment Re: BS (Score 1) 383

Can you back your claim with any evidence that the Constitution can not be amended? If you spent about 2 minutes reading the complete Constitution you would find that the Constitution has in fact been amended numerous times. That means that the process is working as intended and _codified_ in the same document.

The Declaration of independence is the vision, the Constitution is the method of achieving and maintaining the Declaration. The Federalist papers demonstrate the history and discussions used to create the Constitution. All of those things are linked legally and historically.

Mostly, you stated a bunch of rubbish with no factual or historical basis.

Comment Untrue (Score 1, Insightful) 368

MSM is horrible, and possibly worse than what we used to make fun of in the USSR called Pravda. Let me give a couple examples.

Subject 1: "No proof that A"
Subject 2: "Suspicion that B"

There is no logical difference between those two statements, both indicate that A and B both lack enough facts to result in a conclusion. Yet MSM constantly uses this format to denounce A and promote B to suite their agenda (or visa-versa). This type of rhetoric is extremely powerful and hard for most to understand.

They similarly cherry pick content to distort messages, and completely omit facts and stories that would harm their agenda. Monopolization of media means that this is done at massive scale with collusion among nearly all of MSM.

Since people can see through the clouds, at least on occasions where it's obvious, we have come to a point of information deficit in MSM. There is little to no unbiased news. If you are truly unbiased your only option is to go find original sources, which is a daunting and time consuming task. I find it less time consuming to find sources than sift through hours of opinions, but that is something I had to force myself to do (which makes it easier).

Slashdot Top Deals

Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.

Working...