Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Not so simple (Score 1) 499

It's not simply a matter of modulating the frequency to make a woman's voice sound like a man's or vice-versa. There are a lot more differences than that between men and women's speech. Women tend to change their pitch over a wider range than men, who tend to use a narrower range of pitches. They also tend to have breathier voices than men and way less resonance. So it could be that the altered voices just sounded weird or "off" to the interviewers.

Comment Re:We need to stop the abortion. it's just horribl (Score 1) 301

Exodus 21:22-23 makes it abundantly clear that killing a fetus is not at all the same as killing a person. If the fetus is accidentally killed, the person responsible has to pay a fine. But if the woman dies, the person responsible faces the death penalty.

Clearly, the lives of the fetus and the woman are viewed as very different.

(Not that I actually believe any of the crap in the Bible, but it's at least worth knowing what's in there.)

Comment Re:Why is birth control necessary? (Score 1) 301

Every women [sic] has a need based in deep instinct to have children

What a piece of bullshit. I know plenty of women who have absolutely no desire for children and are really happy they don't have any. Unlike axewolf, some people do recognize that they're probably not cut out to be good parents.

what we have on this site are a bunch of totally insecure immasculated cuckholds that vehemently adhere to feminist propaganda

Well, that's better than a fucked-up misogynist with a Madonna/whore complex.

Comment Re:Gun control absolutely, positively does work (Score 1) 660

Oh, so gang-related gun deaths are just fine?

Also, your stats are completely wrong. In 2013, there were more gun deaths due to suicide (21,175) than homicide (11,208). Here's the source.

Furthermore, yes, assholes will not obey gun laws. But if obtaining a gun is hard and guns are scarce, low-resource assholes will have to obey them. The United States is awash with guns that are easy to obtain. If that were not the case, criminals would certainly be no more likely to obey gun laws... but they'd have a harder time getting guns in the first place.

Comment Re:Idiotic politicians (Score 1) 660

Right, nitpick. That's the way to solve things.

In my opinion, private citizens should not be able to own guns, period, unless they can prove a compelling reason. I know that's heresy in the United States, but I don't give a fuck. Specifically, the AR-15 should certainly be banned because it's capable of firing dozens of rounds per minute.

Comment Re:Gun control absolutely, positively does work (Score 2) 660

You went from "glass bottle or knife" to "firebomb". Interesting.

How many people were killed in the United States by guns last year? And how many by firebombs?

The answer is about 13,000 people by firearms in 2015. I couldn't even find statistics for bombing attacks, but I bet it was fewer than 100.

Also, easy access to deadly weapons greatly increases the chances of spur-of-the-moment attacks or suicides, exactly as reported in that Australian study.

Comment Re:This is called the Shock Doctrine (Score 1) 660

drug laws really work great, that's why there is no illegal drug use in this country,

Are you seriously suggesting that if we repealed drug laws, use of dangerous drugs like crack and heroin would not increase?

They exist to provide punishment and revenue, like almost any law. And to stop people from breaking that law again, by locking them up.

Oh, so they do work, at least to some extent?

Tell me, do you refrain from murdering people because it's wrong, or because there's a law against it?

Both. But I'm not everyone. I'm sure there are people out there who are deterred from murdering because of laws. And I'm sure there are people who have murdered who have been prevented from murdering again because of laws.

Comment Gun control absolutely, positively does work (Score 4, Insightful) 660

Second reply: Yes, a determined killer will kill. But easy access to guns makes it much more likely that an unhinged person will take down a whole bunch of others. It's exceedingly unlikely that a guy with a glass bottle or a knife would kill 49 people before being stopped.

Look at Australia's experience with gun control. In the 18 years prior to 1996, they had 13 mass shootings (defined as 4 or more victims.) Since 1996 when they brought in draconian gun laws, they have had zero mass shootings. Zero.

Not only have mass shootings been drastically reduced, but the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent and the firearm suicide rate by 65 percent without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That's because a lot of homicides and suicides are not planned, but occur in the heat of the moment, and are much likely to take place if there's easy access to deadly weapons. Here's the reference (PDF).

Where I do agree, though, is that gun control probably will not work in the US. You have way too many guns in circulation, and you're poisoned by 200+ years of the Second Amendment. Fixing that is well-nigh impossible, but just ignoring the problem is not going to help.

Comment Re:This is called the Shock Doctrine (Score 2) 660

So, laws don't generally deter criminals?

Then why have drug laws? They don't work.

Why have laws against theft? Criminals aren't gonna obey them.

Why have laws against murder? It won't generally deter criminals.

Do you see how utterly fucking ridiculous those statements are? And yet the gun lobby parrots them in regards to gun control in all seriousness and with a straight face.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in BASIC after reaching puberty.

Working...