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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the brand new SourceForge HTML5 speed test! Test your internet connection now. Works on all devices. ×

Comment Re:This is why (Score 1) 80

"Government censorship" is not redundant. Anyone with a channel can censor their channel. That's just what the word means. Google has a very important channel, so it matters when they censor it. Your yard signage is less important, but "censorship" nevertheless.

It's not about "when is it censorship", because by definition it's "every time". It's about "what's the balance between the owner's rights and the community's rights". While I'm strongly biased in favor of the former, once enough of the community depends on you that you have some of the power of a government, then you accrue some of the matching obligations.

Comment Re:Predictably, they think their citizens == idiot (Score 1) 576

The part where non-democratic governments are bad. The part where growing centralized power never ends well (75 years ago Britain had a rather different view of a unified Europe). Hey, if you want to trade democracy for slightly cheaper consumer goods, that's your vote. Others voted otherwise. But don't assume your conclusion when making your argument.

Comment Re: You made it, Syrians! (Score 1) 1550

Yes, billionaires and investment banks really don't like the Brexit, On that basis alone it must be good.

The simple fact is: all the "remain" arguments are practical, while the "leave" vote was one of principle. The risk of the EU becoming a non-democracy is real (that's half-true today: democratic state governments can block EC rulings, but they can't initiate them). The risk of economic collapse of the EU is real. The cultural values of Britain as something worth holding on to is seen as important by many. National sovereignty and the ability to enforce the borders, to limit immigration to some value lower than infinity, is seen as important by many

Fundamentally, the "remain" camp was arguing money, the "leave" camp was arguing "we want to be British, not European". Which camp will actually work out better for the common man? Brexit will be a cost in the short term; time will tell the long term.

Comment Re:Why is gambling illegal? (Score 2) 71

In the early days: because the Bible says it's bad. These days: it's not outright illegal, but it's highly regulated, as it should be given the long history of scamming by gambling houses. Plus, many states want their state lottery to be the only legal betting: no one else gets to milk the gambling addicts.

Comment Re: You made it, Syrians! (Score 1) 1550

The UK has a significant trade deficit, and importantly that's mostly with Germany. The EU won't be eager to stifle that net inflow of money. No reason to expect that to suffer.

This hurts the City, because when you do only arbitrage and add no value, an extra 0.01% cost to trade is a big deal. Billionaires are very sad today.

US companies don't care.

Comment Re:Netflix shares to rise (Score 1) 124

I hadn't thought of the benifit this will have for Netflix. My first take was: Chome "bug" makes it easy to download videos from Google's competitors. This really helps those guys, though, unless it lasts long enough that the content owners start getting pissed at Netflix (not sure how much it matters to Amazon's "purchase" model).

Comment Re: In other news... (Score 1) 199

There are plenty of issues on the right (most Obama conspiracies, 6000 year old earth, "creation science") that can't be logically argued.

They very much can be, if you bother to understand them. Take creationism. The wonderful talk.origins FAQ website (along with the many FAQs linked off of it) does just that. Turns out a lot of creationism is based on debunking "evolution as taught in high school", which is in fact often wrong, because the textbook was really bad, or oversimplified too far. Realizing that "oh, yeah, no scientist believes that either, it's just nonsense" can lead to actually resolving the disagreement based on proving new information.

Logical arguments can be based on false premises, and still be logical. (A lot of other arguments makes sense if you know a little, but not if you know a lot, but that should never be assumed to be the case.)

In fact, most topics on which intelligent people disagree (often strongly) are simply based on reasoning logically from different starting points, or having different goals in mind because you have different values, leading to people arguing past one another forever.

Comment Re: In other news... (Score 4, Interesting) 199

The bias doesn't disturb me. It's the intolerance of opposing views.

As I've always said, if you can't argue the opposing view on any contentious topic, you don't understand the topic and shouldn't hold a strong view. It's so damn easy to attribute the opposing view to malice or trolling, as it takes no effort.

This always pissed me off growing up, when some on the religious right would claim that gays were only have same-sex sex out of a desire to be evil, not a sincere desire for the same sex. Total lack of understanding. More recently I've seem the exact same ignorance in reverse, where people on the progressive left would claim that the only reason conservatives could oppose gay marriage was hatred of gays, and no other reason was sincere. Same total lack of understanding.

Intolerance of opposing views comes mostly from ignorance of the rationale for those views, which is simple intellectual laziness. The worst part is, people seem proud of this ignorance.

Slashdot Top Deals

"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai

Working...