Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:Soooooo... (Score 1) 464

Yes, the dems exposed the sausage making process which isn't pretty but at the same time it wasn't as bad as I expected it would be. Having actually read a bunch of the supposedly bad parts I found nothing that wasn't probably the norm in any parties. Politics is a dirty game and always will be... prostitution is a cleaner business.

What cost the Dems is the media coverage and a public not paying a lot of attention. The repeat of the same old nothing "news" was like Pavlov's dog at the wrong time-- the news did damage which was overcome but then it was RERUN again which did almost as much damage all over again. It wasn't legit news, just rumors illegally disclosed and then heavily propagandized ...which counts as "news" today. The media is so incompetent today one almost wonders if they are not doing it on purpose.... then you just have to remember a lot of them probably did as well in school as Sarah Palin (who has a journalism degree!)

Comment Re:Varied opinions (Score 1) 464

First, I feel that Snowden should actually have his day in court and present his case before anything related to a pardon or commutation is discussed. The American people need to see and hear both his and the government's position and evidence in a more balanced, less sensational environment than the MSM gives us.

The only question that would be debated at trial, or on which any evidence could be presented, is whether or not Snowden stole secrets. The government has overwhelming evidence that he did, including his own repeated admission, to many people, in many forums, many of them recorded and nearly all of them perfectly admissible. There would be no arguments presented as to whether his decision was justified because it was in the public interest, because that has absolutely no bearing on his guilt under the Espionage Act. The only place that would be argued is in his lawyers' appellate pleadings.

So, a trial would do nothing to enable the public to hear the sides. The trial would consist of the government submitting into evidence many pieces of proof of Snowden's act, and Snowden's complete inability to disprove any of it. It's more likely he'd just plead guilty to avoid wasting a court's time -- and making a judge who has to sentence him angry.

Comment Re:Not sure what to think.... (Score 2) 464

IWould prefer a trial where he would be allowed to make his case. Manning wasn't afforded that opportunity either.

Huh? Manning was convicted - hence there was a trial. What use would another trial be?

Well for one it would be a trial against Snowden, not against Manning. And the request was for "a trial where [the defendant] would be allowed to make his case", not a secret trial by a Mickey Mouse court with a pre-determined outcome.

Under the offense Snowden has been charged with, they could have a fully public and perfectly fair trial but the outcome would be completely known in advance. The Espionage Act includes no provision for justification as a defense, so the only question to be tried is whether or not Snowden stole secrets, and there's absolutely no question that he did. Snowden's only hopes if he were to be tried are (a) that the trial judge would hand down a very light sentence, (b) to have his conviction appealed to the Supreme Court who might find that the Espionage Act's lack of a public interest defense constitutes an unacceptable infringement of freedom of speech or (c) a presidential pardon. (a) is unlikely because you can be sure the government would pick a "good" judge, and (b) is a crapshoot, and one that would leave him rotting in jail for years until SCOTUS ruled, assuming they ruled in his favor.

Snowden's best move is exactly what he's doing, staying away until some president decides to pre-emptively do (c). His current status likely also positions him better to generate ongoing publicity in opposition to government spying since it makes him a more controversial and/or tragic figure.

Comment They've been talking about the $100k salary thing (Score 1) 57

since the tail end of Obama's first term. Talking. No action. Same thing with Boeing. Lots of talk. No action. As soon as everybody's eyes are off it'll be BAU.

Obama at least cock blocked the AT&T/Comcast. Yeah, Trump's said he's against it. But at this point that's a little like saying you're against Hitler and Stalin. It's not a controversial stance.

I don't need to give Trump a chance. One look at the cavalcade of billionaires he's nominated for his cabinet (that guy who used to run Carls Jr is particularly bad) and I know where this is going. While I'm on the subject I've got friends who live and breath because of Obamacare. So far their 'alternative' is selling insurance across state lines; an idea that has been vetoed in the past because it just means the companies incorporate in whichever state has the weakest consumer protections. Meanwhile I get to go back to worrying about how the fuck I'm gonna afford Cobra if I change jobs.

Comment Re:Sounds familiar (Score 1) 75

It's hard to charge a user for a back-end system.

Said no bank executive, ever.

FWIW, I've heard bank executives say pretty much exactly that. Typically they don't say "charge a customer", they couch it in other terms like "recoup investment", "generate revenues", etc., but they definitely say it, because it's true.

Comment Re: Dunno if (Score 1) 112

And like I said, this limitation of liability applies to nearly everyone in the modern world. Debt slavery is gone. Debts are not passed to others. So we are all being subsidized by your logic, which is illogical.

Are you having some issues this evening? What would be the difference between a company paying for 12 billion dollars of insurance coverage, and one paying for 10 or 20 times that? Because in the disasters we've had so far, it is crediible that would be the amount of damage incurred. After that, the government picks up the tab. I would like that setup for say, my house insurance. Since we bought our place, it has trebled in value, and I have had to pay more every time it gets re-assessed. I would love to be paying the premiums I paid back in 1994, and if damages exceed that, the Government would write me out a check for the difference. But I can't. I could insure my place for the same amount as in 1994, but if it were wrecked, I'd get a check for a third of the present day replacement costs. And as it turns out, there is a federal flood insurance program that does similarly to the Nuc industry exemption from liabilit,. But I live on top of a hill, so am not eligible But I would indeed have about 20 thousand dollars sitting around that I would have not had to pay out over time if I could have been covered in the same way the nuc plants are covered.

Hey a homeless guy could start a fire in a big city and cause millions of dollars of damage. And he wouldn't have to pay a dime. So the government is subsidizing homeless guys to start fires!!!

And a hurricane could come through and wipe the town out. Or an earthquake. They might be considered Acts of God Your amusing homeless pyromaniac is a criminal act. Presumably the buildings that were destroyed had insurance that they had to pay for based on actual risk assessment tables, and the homeless guy is in prison. Your concept is a non sequitur.

Tyying to get my mind around the apparent fact that you equate the nuclear power industry with a homeless guy. Then again, you are the logical one, eh?

If you even think for one moment that that is what I have suggested, or if your amusing cliff drop version of the slippery slope is reasonable, you might reconsider your attacks on other people's logic.

You want to have this discussion? Or are you just going to stick your fingers in your ears and go "neener neener neener!"

I'm not going to argue with people who cannot understand that dollars are dollars, what you spend is gone, and what you keep you keep or share with the stakeholders, and if you think that it isn't every bit the equal of handing over cash, well, we can't fix that can we. Ciao, me chachalaca!

Comment Re:Gender change as collateral damage? (Score 1) 310

First, we're pretty sure that GD gets started in the 12th week by, in m2f transsexuals, the male gonads not releasing testosterone at that critical time. We can retroactively tell the intrauterine testosterone environment by the growth rate of different bones in the body at different points in development. (see 2D:4D digit ratio). While it's a strong indicator in white males, it's not so good in other ethnicities, and it's not 100% determinative, but it's a damn good red flag that something didn't happen when it should, and that affected the development of the fetal brain.

Just look up the definition of GD. There is no "spectrum." Either you have it or you don't. Now, in terms of treatment, there IS a spectrum. Some people do okay just with social transition, some add hormones, some get a lopitoffofme or an addadicktome. Some can't access various treatment options because of financial, social, legal, or medical reasons.

The other "transgenderisms" are just simply not medical conditions, same as sexual orientation isn't, same as eye color isn't (except for the lack of pigment which causes problems). There's no demand for treatment, no medical reason for one.

What you describe is not transsexualism. Here's a simplified list

If you're a teenager or adult with gender dysphoria, you may feel:

  • without doubt that your gender identity is at odds with your biological sex
  • comfortable only when in the gender role of your preferred gender identity
  • a strong desire to hide or be rid of the physical signs of your sex, such as breasts, body hair or muscle definition
  • a strong dislike for – and a strong desire to change or be rid of – the genitalia of your biological sex

Without appropriate help and support, some people may try to suppress their feelings and attempt to live the life of their biological sex. Ultimately, however, most people are unable to keep this up.

Having or suppressing these feelings is often very difficult to deal with and, as a result, many transsexuals and people with gender dysphoria experience depression, self-harm or suicidal thoughts.

When they say "strong desire", think "taking a knife to it and cutting it off yourself." It's not a social thing so much as "this is SO F*ING WRONG I WANT IT GONE ANY WAY POSSIBLE - no doubts, no regrets."

Also, forget the whole "coached as to what to say if you want to go through the approval process." These assholes briefing you (and they are assholes if they're feeding you this pantload of crap) are 20 years out of date. It doesn't work that way except in some backwards gender clinics. Just. Tell. The. Truth. There are no wrong answers, and if you make sh*t up, you're more liable to screw yourself over than anything else.

If you end up dealing with someone still practicing as if it was their role to be a "gatekeeper", find someone else. Gatekeepers cannot help you nearly as well. Those gatekeepers still exist, and you can see by the "coaching" that those who have gone through them in the past feel you need to have, that they have done some serious damage.

You should never have to "sell" the idea that you're transsexual. If you feel you have, maybe it's just not right for you, or you've been given some really bad advice.

Either way, best of luck.

PS: Gender clinics will lie to you. In many jurisdictions, you no longer have to go through one to be approved for surgery, but they won't tell you that - and neither will many of the practitiioners, such as endocrinologists, because the government doesn't go out of their way to say the rules have changed. Not even the trans-specific orgs will necessarily know. There's no incentive to "get the word out" in the industry and piss off working relationships.

For example, here all you need are a letter from a psychiatrist who has known you for 6 months, a second mental health professional who has seen you at least once, the doctor (can be a GP) who has prescribed hormones for at least 6 months (and yes, GPs can prescribe hormones without you seeing a specialist for an assessment - it's called either the harm prevention (if you would otherwise get illegal hormones) or informed consent (if you have been told of the risks) model - and both meet WPATH standards), and a doctor who says you're healthy enough to undergo surgery.

And yet the gender clinic will tell you that you can only get hormones through them, that you have to be in therapy every week and group every 2 weeks for a year before, and that there's another 2 years minimum of therapy before you can get surgery. It's all about the money, baby.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kill Ugly Radio - Frank Zappa