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


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

Comment Re: Just what the world needs (Score 1) 268

He's not as bad as many Republicans on this particular topic, no, but he's hardly pro-gay.

He is not as enlighted on this issue as I wish he was, but I can with those issues. And I think there is some clear pro-gay elements as well. He has supported AIDS charities in 80s and 90s, seems to have gay friends and he has supported amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to "include a ban of discrimination based on sexual orientation.".

And if I am not mistaken, Hillary is not completely spotless on gay issues either:

Hillary Clinton's Gay-Marriage Problem

Comment Re: Just what the world needs (Score 1) 268

It is true that there is more things in your life than just your sexual orientation. Being gay (or straight) is just a part of yourself. You are much more than just your sexual orientation. We all have different opinions about different things, different personalities, different experiences, different interest, different hobbies, different jobs, different families, different diseases, different places we live etc. Sexual orientation does not dictate these things and is often not even involved at all with many of these things.

And when you vote for a candidate, it is almost guaranteed that you are not able to find a candidate that agrees with you on every issue. With the current political system you have to make compromise and try to choose a candidate that has a chance to be elected and is closest to your opinions.

As a Finn I am not able to vote for Trump, but I would vote for him if I could and if the other choices were the current ones. And I am a gay, but not self loathing in any way. I just wish that we here would have similar politicians that understand that uncontrolled Muslim immigration at this rate cannot continue or it is going to destroy Europe. As a gay I am very afraid for the future of next generations of gays if we let Islam to take over of Europe. And even though it won't happen immediately, it will happen in a frighteningly short time period, if this mass immigration from Muslim countries is not stopped.

And before somebody starts to lecture that not all Muslims want to kill gays, I recommend they to check the human rights situation of gays in Muslim countries and the opinion polls done among Muslims both in Muslim countries and in western countries as well. Practically all Muslim countries are more or less black holes for human rights and not just for gays. My best friend, with whom I have lived several years, happens to be a gay from Muslim background and trough him I have much more detailed than many naive leftist who seem to think that we have resources to save the whole world and just being nice to other we will be rewarded with nice behavior towards us. They don't understand that both Islam and overbreeding are the main reasons why these countries they are coming from, are such poor and terrible places. And if we let these people and they continue to insist to practice backwards religion, cousing marriages with mental retardiation and to overbreed, we have not saved their own countries, but we are going to cause the same kind of problems to appear here as well and destroy our own country as well.

And it is not just the gay rights or the rights of women that are at risk. Even with the current immigration levels there is starting to be more and more often Islamic terror attacks in Europe (of course, in many Muslim countries there is even much more terrorism). Sharia patrols are starting to attack people if they drink alcohol, have dog, seem to be gay etc. In many areas firemen, ambulances etc are attacked and they don't go there at least without police escort and even police tries to avoid these areas that seem to be spreading.

And it is not just human rights and security that are threatened. For example, there will be even much more difficult housing crisis, we will run out of money to have social security anymore. On average humanitarian migrant will cost about 500000-1000000 euros during their lifetime and employment levels are often extremely low (partly because of socil security, partly because they tend to have extremely low education or are often even illiterate, even though local job markets tend to require education, speaking local languages etc). Last year there were much more than million asylum seekers.

Of course Trump is not perfect. He uses ruder language than I would in many things. But he seems to be one of the few who understands that uncontrolled immigration is going to destroy Europe if it is let to continue for much longer. And that issue is much more important than having gay marriage accepted or not. What good does gay marriage do, if within couple generations there will be sharia law which totally prohibits homosexuality or if there are routinely violent attacks towards gays.

Comment Re: Just what the world needs (Score 4, Informative) 268

As an European I haven't been following all the details, but if I am not mistaken, Trump is actually relatively supportive towards gays (especially if compared to others within Republican party) even if he does not support recognizing gay marriage at the moment. There was story about this issue on New York Times:

Donald Trump's More Accepting Views on Gay Issues Set Him Apart in G.O.P.

Comment Re:This is largely a myth (Score 0) 268

That is true, but the she is an astute foreign policy person, and will have very good relationships with Angela Merkel, who very much understands what's at stake.

Was that some kind of sick joke? Angela Merkel is disaster and her extremely shortsighted and naive politics with asylum seekers, Turkey etc is not only in danger of destroying the EU, but Europe itself. Now Brits have voted to escape this madness and I understand well why they have done that.

Comment Re:Citizens come last (Score 1) 308

The budgeted costs for this year are already 1000 million and I wouldn't be surprised that even that wouldn't be enough, especially when you count family reunifications. And next your will probably cost much more as the number of persons that are here, keeps rising rapidly and they have very poor probability of getting work. And there is no need for extermination camps. Just not letting them into country is enough, Besides, the majority of them are just seeking better life standard and not even fleeing war. And fleeing war is not grounds for getting refugee status according to Geneva Convention on Refugees.

And in the end, somebody will have to fight ISIS and stop the spread of it to even wider and wider areas. Those who are fleeing war and leaving their women behind, might as well be the ones, who fight against ISIS. We could support the fight against ISIS with weapons, medical supplies etc.

Comment Re:Don't fret. You just suck at reading comprehens (Score 1) 308

Both of you are using inaccurate, old and/or false information. The situations is much worse than you seem to think. Here are just some examples where you are using false information or misinterpreting it:

-During 2015 the number of asylum seekers in Finland was about 32000 persons and not 15000 persons
-That 15000 euros doesn't cover all costs
-That 2400 persons using relocation of 120000 persons would come on top of that 32000 persons. However, even this relocation scheme is more or less dead (*).
-"Finland is likely to resettle asylum seekers to other countries of the European Union if the bloc creates a permanent and binding mechanism of redistribution of refugees": There doesn't seem to be much political will for this and in any case, it wouldn't make the asylum crisis any better. It would only spread it to even more countries and buy little more time, but the flood from developing countries is in practice endless and accelerating. It is simply unsustainable and must be stopped or Europe as we know it, will collapse.

*) The relocation of 120000 persons from certain South-European countries was one time test. Finland took about 100-200 person of the promised 2400 persons, but all other countries took much less, even if those countries were much bigger and had promised to take much more people than Finland. It seems that this process failed miserably. And in any case, 120000 is only small fraction of persons that are in Southern-Europe. It would not have solved anything, especially as so many persons come in daily, that it would hardly make any difference.

Comment Re:Refugees (Score 1) 308

It won't take long that countries start going bankruptcy or at least stop having welfare system, with social security, healthcare and education. As Milton Friedman said, welfare state is incompatible with open borders. And on top of that, we will have very high level of crime and probably more and more terrorist attacks by ISIS.

Comment Re:Refugees (Score 1) 308

You said that: "The cost of the refugee crisis is orders of magnitude lower than what is needed to keep funding universities as they were previously." It is actually the other way around. The university budget cuts are somewhat more than 100 million euros a year, but much less than the 1000 millions that is budgeted for the asylum seeker crisis. And it is likely that the budgeted 1000 millions won't cover all costs of asylum seekers and during following years the cost of asylum seeker crisis is going to rise rapidly as the number of these "immigrants" staying in this country is going to rise rapidly.

And these immigrants very likely don't cause just temporary problem. For example, in Norway it has been estimated that the lifetime cost of humanitarian immigrant to the country is somewhere between 500000-1000000 euros. Even though some of them will after many years find a job, the total net effect is still quite negative.

And we know from previous persons from these areas that even after many years, the unemployment percentage is extremely high compared to native population. And the education average education level for these "immigrants" is quite low. For example, great majority of persons from Somalia and Afghanistan are even illiterate. And only small percentage persons from Iraq have education that would be useful here.

And our economy is already in quite bad shape, unemployment rates high and we don't have free jobs waiting for these people. If this flood of asylum seekers (most of which are just economic immigrants) continues much longer, we will simply run out of money. We can continue some time with loaned money, but at some point nobody will want to loan money to us. And I don't think it is wise to run this country into chaos and collapse by letting these people come without any end in sight. We are tiny country and we cannot save the billions of poor people who ruin their own countries with backward religion and culture and would like to export it to other countries as well by making far too many babies compared to their capability to take care of them.

Comment Hitler or Putin? (Score 1) 547

It could be next Hitler, but it could also be Putin. Even though invasion by Russia would be disaster and Russia is very corrupted country, with serious human right issues, social problems etc, the longer the Muslim mass movement continues, the larger and larger percentage of population will probably start see even invasion by Russia better option than European countries turning in Muslim countries. I cannot understand why Merkel and some other leading politicians are continuing this social experiment with open doors policy to mass movement, that will turn European countries into ruins -- and not just their own countries.

Comment Re:invite more people in? (Score 1) 547

If we continue just let in all persons from these shithole countries which are shitholes more or less because of Islam, it won't take long before European countries turn into shitholes as well. Islam becomes majority religion with all of the backwardness and welfare state collapses because there simply is not enough money in Europe to become the welfare office for the billions of poor people on Earth. It doesn't matter what is the motives for these welfare refugees, but the end result will be the same.

Comment Re:invite more people in? (Score 1) 547

I am very afraid of this recent development. It seems that Merkel and some other leading politicians are either incredibly naive, unable to do basic calculations about the unsustainability of this mass movement of Muslims to Europe and what this will mean to the European countries.

Islam is very hostile religion towards gays and not that enlightened in other ways either. It is incredibly naive to think that we could change the way they think for most of these persons who move here. And many of them are ultra fanatical about their religion. It is also only wishful thinking that we could easily employ most of these people in reasonable time frame. We already know that even when a lot more persons came here, the employment percentages have stayed really low. And despite claims, most of these asylum seekers have really low education and extremely large percent are even illiterate. And even many of the educated ones don't have education that is really comparable to the European education and they don't speak local languages etc. And we cannot afford to be a welfare office to the rest of world, which is much larger than Europe. And the population density of large parts of Europe is already quite dense.

Large percentage of population is getting really angry that the politicians don't seem to listen their worries and just let about everybody in, even though this will lead Muslims becoming majority in relatively short time frame, collapse of welfare system, collapse of human rights, creeping sharia laws, terrorism, losing rights of gays, women etc.

If this mass movement is not stopped soon, there will be total chaos in Europe. Terrorism, economic collapse, famine, wars, breaking down of countries, civil wars, perhaps ethnic cleansings, mass persecution of gays etc.

In my opinion it is no coincidence why Muslim countries tend to be such horrible places. It is because of the religion and I certainly don't want sharia law, terrorism, being threatened because of being gay, chaos etc to my home country and other European countries. I cannot understand why Merkel and Sweden for so long are doing this kind of social experiment that will lead to really horrible result.

Comment Re:Asylum-seeker flood is destroying Europe (Score 1) 965

Most of the asylum seekers in EU are not from Syria. In Finland only about 3 percent are from Syria (the average in EU is about 25 percent, if I remember correctly). The rest of the people are coming from all kinds of places, like Afganistan, Iraq (BTW, the population of Baghdad alone is over 7 million persons, so it has much larger population than the whole Finland), Somalia, Nigeria etc. And the population of developing countries is growing by tens of millions yearly and they aren't able to take care of this rapidly growing population and it starts to overflow to Europe.

And in your calculation, you failed to take into account the family reunification (and the fact that the migrants will make their babies as well). Family unification alone, can easily multiple the number of persons coming (as the family size in Muslim countries is often quite large) and so will making babies. And even if we didn't take all this into account, I would find it a pretty big change that during my lifetime I would become a minority in my own country which would be then a Muslim country. Most of the persons so far have been men and I am pretty sure that very large percentage of them either already have a wife (and children) or will bring a wife from Muslim countries and make children during their lives.

Slashdot Top Deals

If bankers can count, how come they have eight windows and only four tellers?