Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:British "free speech" norms (Score 1) 70

He was arrested for threatening and abusive behaviour and assault.

Correct. Specifically, his non-violent, spoken response to a question about the Bible was considered "threatening and abusive".

but he was actually arrested because he was accused of assault.

Correct. That's because the British increasingly consider some speech to be "assault". That is, blurring the line between free speech that offends someone ("verbal assault") and physical assault is one way in which countries rationalize draconian restrictions on free speech and in which citizens accept such restrictions.

Again, this is just one of many examples of how US and UK differ on the question of hate speech. For you to try to argue that the UK has free speech just like the US is completely out of touch with reality.

Comment Re:Misleading and false (Score 1) 123

Based on a meta-analysis, current PV systems have energy payback times of about 3-4 years. But that's unlikely to be accurate. Subsidized payback periods for PV systems are about 7 years, and unsubsidized payback periods are about 15 years, and both PV and non-PV costs are dominated by energy inputs.

Comment Re: Telephone Game: Racist Edition (Score 1) 171

I know nothing about K. S. Kyosuke, but I interpreted that to mean he (she?) had grown up in East Germany or at least the Eastern bloc, but had been able to travel to West Germany.

That wouldn't support his argument. We're talking about a (putative, non-existent) right to enter another country as a non-citizen.

The transgression of the "stinking Communists" was an entirely different one: they violated the (established) right of citizens to leave their country of citizenship.

And speaking as someone whose family actually suffered for decades under "stinking Communists" and who has actually lived as an immigrant much of his life, it is incomprehensible to me how anybody who claims to have been affected by the "stinking Communists" could fail to understand the distinction.

Comment Re:I know (Score 2) 221

There are quite a large number of hours of footage. There's bound to be a few mistakes.

Sarkeesian's problem isn't that she makes "mistakes", it's that her videos are hours upon hours of self-righteous indignation by a pampered privileged princess who has made a career out of appealing to sex-starved male nerds coming to her defense. It's so stupid, it's actually kind of funny.

Comment Re:I know (Score 2) 221

You know that's a word with an actual meaning right?

Yes, and the terms "sexist" (prejudice or stereotyping based on sex) and "bigot" (intolerance towards those holding different opinions) clearly apply to Sarkeesian, regardless of whether you agree with her politics.

Does Anita cause a slew of very large advertisers to stop paying huge amounts of money all at once?

I suspect she actually does, but since Google favors her political views, they are likely willing to pay a significant price in advertising revenue.

In any case, your sarcasm meter is broken.

Comment Re:Here's the actual problem, (Score 1) 171

Posturing about the law, and ignorance of the law, them two make a saucy shit sandwich. Every. Time

I've lived as an immigrant and guest worker for much of my life, and I've always understood that immigration is a privilege, that as an immigrant I do not have most of the rights of citizens, and that until I become a citizen, I can be asked to leave at any time. Even now that I am a citizen, my family abroad has no right to visit me here or live with me (although they occasionally enjoy that privilege after going through the paperwork). That's the way US and international law both work and have always worked.

And I agree: posturing and ignorance of the law are the problem here, namely posturing by people who evidently know little about (or deliberately misrepresent, for self-serving reasons) immigration-related law in the US and abroad and who naively assume for political and ideological reason that fairness demands that non-citizens are treated like citizens.

And US law is also clear that border searches are not police searches.

Comment Re:Here's the actual problem, (Score 1) 171

On the other hand, the US signed a treaty (actually a couple) that says my wife and son, both not citizens of the USA, can wander into the USA any time they want

Really? A treaty that grants non-citizens unconditional legal rights to enter the US? Being an immigrant myself, most of whose family lives outside the US, I'd love to hear about that! Can you provide pointers?

Comment Re: Telephone Game: Racist Edition (Score 1) 171

You're literally worse than the stinking Communists that actually let me visit my West German grandfather.

Why would communists prevent you from visiting your West German grandfather? West Germany was never run by communists.

As for the "stinking Communists", their problem was that they violated the fundamental right of people to leave their country. That's why most of my family couldn't visit me after I emigrated, being stuck behind the iron curtain and all that. Of course, it was easy for Westerners to visit East Germany: Westerners brought hard currency and were very unlikely to stay in those shitholes.

Immigrants like myself who actually have first-hand experience with "stinking Communism" need to speak up to prevent ignorant, privileged fools like you from turning the US into the kind of shitholes we came from.

Comment Re:Here's the actual problem, (Score 5, Insightful) 171

Any information you hand over is you consenting to a search. They will make feel like you can't get into the country without a social media account. That's not true. It's just a scare tactic.

Admission of non-citizens into the US is not a right and is not subject to due process. Non-citizens can be denied entry for arbitrary reasons, not just in the US but also in all other countries on the planet. How do I know? I have lived in half a dozen countries and immigrated to the US.

Even as a citizen, you can be searched at the border.

It's just 9/11 united in hatred and ignorance bullshit group think all over again.

The "ignorance and group think" is people like you who confuse legal protections of citizens with immigration procedures.

I wanna know where are all the NAACP related groups and protestors on this?

Quite apart from the legal issues, the NAACP stands up for the rights and advancement of a population that suffers from, on average, lower education, lower skills, and lower incomes. What possible reason would the NAACP have to advocate the admission into the US of even more people who compete for already scarce low skill jobs?

Comment Re:People are starting to notice... (Score 1) 447

Populism is where the majority takes the reigns and says, "no, we're not going to do it that way, we're going to do it our way because it provides the most benefit to us, the majority."

In a presidential election, about 60-70 million people vote for the winning candidate out of a population of about 320 million, which is a little more than 20%. That's not a "majority". Those 60-70 million represent a huge diversity of interests and reasons for picking one candidate or another. The idea that "the majority" is a valid concept and represents a group of people with common interests is absolutely ludicrous. The same is true for state and local elections.

Of course, economically, it may seem like you are part of something like "the majority of the bottom 90%" and that taking money from the top 10% and transferring it to the bottom 90% is a good idea for the bottom 90%. However, that is not only unjust, it also simply doesn't work in the long term. It's also not what other progressive welfare states do: European countries finance their welfare states with much higher taxes on the middle class.

"The aristocracy" and "feudal lords" weren't bankers and merchants, they were people who were given special privileges by the church and the state and thought themselves intellectually superior and divinely justified. Then, as now, people like you, Warren, and Sanders hated successful businessmen with a passion, often leading directly to antisemitism and pogroms. And you're right that the hatred of successful businessmen, their denunciation as an "aristocracy", and calls for their expropriation are both progressive and populist; when they become more extreme (usually, after progressives and populists like you have destroyed the economy), they turn into pogroms and overt fascism.

Hayek makes the economic case for why people like you are worshipers and enablers of feudalism in his book "The Road to Serfdom". I suggest you read it.

Comment Re:People are starting to notice... (Score 0) 447

The question is what we do when the possibilities of realistically supporting yourself evaporate completely, and we go back to a semi-feudal system -- the nobles having all the power and letting the peasants who serve them exist at the bare minimum standard.

You mean the kind of economy and society that people like Sanders and Warren want to bring about? Because that's what social democracy, the welfare state, and progressivism lead to: a "semi-feudal system".

Slashdot Top Deals

Talent does what it can. Genius does what it must. You do what you get paid to do.