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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Doesn't get much weaker (Score 2) 49

This submission is bizarre.
Even for trolling standards, the "news" is unbelievably silly.

Any communication online (and offline for that matter) will be used to exchange illegal stuff.

You can replace "Telegram" with "Email", "Google Drive", "Usenet" - or even "FedEx" and "Telephone".

Any of those things are used for much worse than pirating content: *terrorists and rapists* use them for nefarious goals. So what?

I don't hear "Telephone" getting the blame. Nor I hear Gmail being asked to pay more attention to the content of those emails. You don't expect the provider of such services to police private communications.

What's the point of singling out Telegram, of all things?

(In case this is Ivan following on today's directive "Find something to attack Telegram", then it's a very lazy attempt. Can do better, Ivan.)

Comment Re: How motherfucking hard is it (Score 1) 308

"right" is determined by the social/historical context.

If internet is the key to primary services, education, decent life - then yes, it obviously becomes a right worth defending.

Also, such rights have squat to do on whether privates are involved. Baby food is sold in supermarkets - yet we think kids have a right not starve.

Comment Re: Needs to stop (Score 1) 500

There are probably ways to make the electoral system better - and there are almost certainly ways to screw up royally.

After Al Gore lost the 2000 election (and yes, he really did lose, The New York Times did an in-depth analysis after the election of votes cast, showing al Gore lost fair and square), Democrats ran around with their hair on fire, arguing that we MUST roll out, expensive, vulnerable, and frail electronic voting ASAP to avoid another 'uncertain' election outcome.

Fast-forward 16 years, now Democrats are running around with their hair on fire, insisting that THE RUSSIANS are going to upset the coming election, and the only solution is for DHS to provide 'oversight' in all elections this November 'just in case' those pesky Russians try anything.

The sitting party wants the ability to second-guess every state election, presumably with the ability to invalidate results they find 'suspect' - sounds great, doesn't it?

How does this relate with the opportunity, or not, to have a debate on the overall electoral system? No irony, just an open question.
The sitting party, either one, is sitting because it has been voted.
Am I missing your point entirely?

Comment Re: Needs to stop (Score 1) 500

I hear you,
but the the first thing you want is a mainstream debate on IF, and HOW, the electoral system can be made better.

[Mainstream means: people get stuff about it on their facebook feed, see the topic on the opinion page of their favorite newspaper, hear about it on TV etc. This is currently not happening. ]

There are probably ways to make the electoral system better - and there are almost certainly ways to screw up royally.

Let's face it: With all the faults you may find, the current system has historically served the U.S. people well. Some reforms are probably a good idea, but we better come up with something really, really smart.

Comment Re: Obligatory.. (Score 1) 235

God is quite an elusive idea - but I do like very much the idea of loving your neighbor!

But if really boils down to that, why carrying forward all the baggage that can be summarized in that one wise and precious sentence?
Why loading yourself with the need to explain away everything else, when you could just choose any modern philosopher (say, Peter Singer) that says essentially the same thing, but without the references to goats, stoning and the like? It appears on the face of it an enormous effort and rather a waste of energy. What am I missing?

Comment Re: Obligatory.. (Score 1) 235

thanks for your answer, I mean it!
one thing I don't understand is the following - maybe you can help (no irony)

the new testament is not getting into details on topics that many Christians seem to care about. topics like human sexuality, origins of the cosmos, laws of nature, and more.
when many Christians are looking for answers on such topics, they tend to refer to the old testament. however, when such answers appear unpalatable in the old testament (see e. g. stoning), they use the argument that the new testament has supeseded those things.

is it a fair reading? how do you know when something is superseded and when?

Comment Re: Older = Better (Score 1) 235

if you tried living in a cave, fighting bears with bare hands, surviving the decimation of your tribe by a neighbor tribe, to then die at age 25 of a small infection, all the while believing that the god of blood and thunder rules the forest, and moves the sun, his slave and concubine through the sky... ... you would have a different opinion.

Slashdot Top Deals

Space tells matter how to move and matter tells space how to curve. -- Wheeler

Working...