Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:DNC? (Score 3, Insightful) 52

So, the Russians manipulated US voters by discovering and revealing awful truths about a candidate for president?

Suppose this dastardly deed has been done by -- and I'm being deliberately zany here -- the news media doing their damn job?

Would it have been a bad thing then?

How about if it had happened before that nominee had won the nomination? Would that have been a bad thing or a good thing?

Let's hope next time, the Russians (or whoever does it next time) does it before the nomination.

And they do it to all the despicable candidates of the statutory duopoly parties, rather than just the one.

Comment Re:decreasing population (Score 1) 318

I think its better to have population decline than population increase, as indefinite increase is not possible. You need to stop at some point.

I think its better to have population increase than population decline, as infinite decrease is not possible. You need to stop at some point: when there are no people.

Comment Re:Critical mass?!?! DAMN that Trump! (Score 1) 201

How exactly is that supposed to work? They sell their entire portfolio for cash, and put the cash in a bunch of safe deposit boxes, or hide it under a mattress?

Or maybe just sell it all and buy U.S. Treasuries?

Maybe that's not the phenomenally bad idea it seems to be.

That'd certainly provide one strong incentive to preserve and even improve the U.S. government's credit rating, now wouldn't it?

Comment Re:I'll never vote over the net (Score 1) 117

Then how do you circumvent vote buying?

We haven't. We've only changed the process slightly.

"Vote for me and I'll have the government rob other people to pay for the goodies the government is going to give you. But if you don't vote for me, well, I might not win."

(It also comes in another form: "Vote for me and I'll have the government rob you less than you're being robbed now. But if you don't vote for me, well, I might not win.")

That kind of vote-buying is self-enforcing, to a degree.

And that kind of vote-buying is not stoppable, AFAIK.

Comment So, a lot of electricity comes from solar? (Score 1) 364

Does this mean that a lot of electricity comes from solar?

Or does it mean that solar pwer is a labor-intensive way to get electricity?

Sounds like the latter. Maybe someone who cares more than I do will do the math. The metric we're looking for, I think, is human hours per kilowatt-hour. Or something like that.

Comment What "should" means (Score 1) 537

In order to answer this we need to know which meaning of "should" is intended.

Is this a prediction, made according to theory or experience? Apparently not.

Is this a moral imperative, as in "you should do what you agreed to do"? Apparently not.

Is it in a sentence with an implied clause -- "in order to" -- about something to be attained or avoided? Apparently.

Leaving that up to the reader to fill in makes for a more free-ranging discussion, I suppose.

If you want an actual answer, you should not leave that part out.

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Working...