Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:The benefits of Single Payer (Score 1) 108

I don't think you understand the difference between Single Payer, and Single Provider.

In theory there may well be a huge difference, in practice there will be none — the Payer's regulation will go into every nitty-gritty detail of Provision ensuring uniformity. And absence of choice — look at what has already happened with the public schools...

Comment Re:Change the laws together with English (Score 1) 1087

Scientific American disagrees with you.

OMG, appeal to authority is all you can do? Pathetic... BTW, the article you cited says nothing about the meaning of the word "race" changing. Even if it is a social construct, it must've been that in the 19th century as well — your claims remain wrong either way.

my local media don't care about your local news

The very point is, it is only "local news" here, because it is Black-against-White discrimination. Had it been the other way around, it would've been on the front pages of major newspapers — and foreign media would've reprinted it too.

Comment Re:The benefits of Single Payer (Score 1, Insightful) 108

This has nothing to do with single payer anything.

Creating a monopoly, where the consumers/users not only can not switch to a different provider, they can not even point out at how things can be done differently, is certainly very similar to what the proponents of Single Payer wish to happen.

There are too many different ministries, agencies and departments with too many different data requirements and laws governing who can be provided with certain information.

Are there really more of such "ministries, agencies and departments", than there are patients?

Comment The benefits of Single Payer (Score 1, Offtopic) 108

IT failures have increased by 129 per cent since Shared Services Canada took over tech support for the entire government five years ago. Not only that, the memo says, the duration of each outage has increased by 98 per cent. "Its 'one size fits all' IT shared services model has negatively impacted police operations, public and officer safety and the integrity of the criminal justice system," reads the memo.

But Single Payer eliminates redundancy, thus lowering the costs while improving the services. Does it not?

Comment Thank you, Hillary Clinton! (Score -1, Flamebait) 67

It is only thanks to the thoughtful regulation by the omniscient and benevolent government bureaucrats, that the giant and heartless KKKorporation$ can be forced to improve services and lower costs.

Had Trump won, he would've appointed a RethugliKKKan to head the FCC and the consumer would've gotten butt-raped again!

So nice to have a sensible woman at the helm instead!

Comment Re: How is FILMING "speech"? (Score 1) 176

Constitutional rights don't give you the right to break other laws. In the case you mention, people entered a Federal building in disguise and fiddled with the phones. Those actions are themselves illegal, regardless of what legal or protected activities went on.

Very true, yes. Which only confirms, that the First Amendment has nothing to do with this — the actions of the video-taper are illegal or not depending on whether or not his video-taping (or any accompanying activity, such as entering under false pretenses or disobeying police order to stop) is illegal or not. That is, his video-taping is currently legal simply because there is no law making it illegal — not because it is somehow covered by the First Amendment.

And if the State of Texas — or the city of Fort Worth — ever make it illegal to record police activity, Phillip Turner's future such actions will become just as illegal as those of James O'Keefe.

Once again, I do not dispute that Phillip's actions were legal, and James' were not (in the case cited). Just that neither had anything to do with the First Amendment...

Submission + - SPAM: The Cultural Purge Will Not Be Televised

Stunt Pope writes: There is a #deleteShopify movement going, demanding they drop services to — I have no affiliation with either company, but this is terribly wrong. Do you really want to live in a world where who you do business with and who you can associate with are governed by flash mobs?
Link to Original Source

Comment Re:Bigger picture. Not the actual recording but... (Score 1) 176

It's the playback and that certainly goes under free speech

Yes, the playback is/should be protected, no doubt. But the taping itself? As I already asked in this thread — is everything done in order to talk about it in the future protected by the First Amendment?

Closer to TFA, should this guy have claimed First Amendment protection of his evidence-gathering?

Comment Re: How is FILMING "speech"? (Score 1) 176

But “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” News-gathering, for example, “is entitled to first amendment protection, for ‘without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated,’” even though this right is not absolute.

We are making the full circle, but let's try one more time. If it is the gathering of information (meant for later publication) that places video-taping under the protective wing of the First Amendment, why was not this guy's activity under the same protection?

Comment Re:The Million Regulators March on Washington (Score 1) 119

Put another way, even Google with their near-bottomless buckets of money has said it's too hard for them.

Exactly the example I wanted to cite. Google can count. They know, what cables cost and how hard it is to run it. But the costs and, more importantly, the intangible difficulties of obtaining the permits can not be estimated in advance.

And so it follows, that it were these government-imposed costs and difficulties, that scuttled Google Fiber — because, had it been anything else, they wouldn't have even attempted. Indeed, we already know it quite well, that the real barrier for having nice Internet-connectivity is not the ISPs, who want your money, but the local mayors and city councils, who want free stuff and favors.

And you would notice too, that where they started (and continue to operate) is not exactly the thickly settled — and thus Illiberal-dominated — coastal city... Even though "thickly settled" is the most attractive part for an ISP.

As long as the government can throttle an upstart ISPs — such as by holding them to the letter of some regulation, however imprecise and unclear — the incumbent, who can take the President for a round of golf, will thrive. Thrive without improving service and lower prices.

Comment Re:Ukraine to the rescue (Score 2) 161

It's worth noting that both the AN124 and 225 are operating in a market completely separated from Airbus and Boeing.

There is a different meaning to the word "separation". Firms like FedEx and UPS may be happy to use a giant plane like Mria for their own busy routes — still need the same crew, but can take a lot more load. A single such AN can replace a number of Boeings and/or Airbuses, which could be used for human travelers.

If only Antonov actually managed to move to actually building those planes, rather than merely designing them. Hopefully, the Saudi and the Chinese investments — as well as the reduced/eliminated Russian influence — will help.

Comment Re:Change the laws together with English (Score 1) 1087

I'm merely informing you that the definition of race has improved since the 19th century when everyone was either Caucasian, Negroid or Mongoloid

I don't believe in either of your claims: neither that the definition has actually changed, nor that the change you assert would've been for the better, had it actually happened.

Race is most certainly not a "social construct" — the very reason, discrimination based on it is wrong (and illegal) is that it is immutable. A human being does not choose to be of particular race.

Now, there has always been the other meaning for the same word — a homonym, really — which would, indeed, make any grouping of people, including fans of a particular sports team, or cat-lovers, or Emacs-users a "race". That meaning is not at all new — it certainly existed in the 19th century — but it, quite clearly and self-evidently, is not what the anti-discrimination laws mean. A FreeBSD-bigot like myself can not claim "racial discrimination" after being turned away from an all-Windows shop, for example.

I'm not too familiar with the case [of Rachel Dolezal -mi]

Of course, you aren't — Blacks are given a pass by all your news-sources, when they discriminate or even murder based on race.

she resigned from her job because she had been caught lying about her background

Obviously, had she not lied, they would not have hired her in the first place — even though she was, obviously, qualified — it is Ok, for some reason, for Blacks to discriminate against Whites.

We try to fix this over time, but some people think that going back to the 'good old days , whenever they were supposed to be, will solve all of this.

What? Does this, somehow, justify the discrimination against Whites and Asians manifested by NAACP?

Slashdot Top Deals

The disks are getting full; purge a file today.