Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:Supply and Demand - where is the demand? (Score 1) 368

Several million times a year, guns are used to deter or prevent crime. Most of those are merely showing the gun or announcing its presence. Very very few of these make the news, because they are boring. But they work because guns are simple and effective. If all guns were smart guns, they'd bo so unreliable that very few criminals would be deterred by them, and crime would skyrocket.

On, and all your police would be be effectively disarmed too. Unless of course you think police (who commit more crimes off-duty than conceal carriers) are more responsible than "civilians".

Fuck off, slaver who is too stupid to think.

Comment Best fix for poverty is removing regulation (Score 1) 1

One of the worst aspects of the regulatory state is how it gets in the way of people helping themselves. Occupational licensing, state-sponsored cartels like taxis, land zoning, regulations which prevent people planting vegetable gardens, all these things hit the self-supporting the most. Minimum wage laws hurt the unskilled by cutting back the opportunity to learn skills from entry level jobs. Too many places even make it illegal to feed the poor without restaurant-level food prep, or for groceries to give away food on its sell-by date, or fruit and veggies which are too ugly for commercial sale.

US local, state, and federal governments spend $7-8 trillion every year, which is around $50,000 for every household in this country. It's amazing that people have anything left for themselves, and since income taxes don't come close to matching this, it must come from sales taxes (10%), property taxes, business taxes (35%, I think, which is just passed on to consumers), and all the other taxes that are hidden away and people aren't aware of. This is an incredible drag on the economy -- 40% of GDP. Estimates are that somewhere around 15% of the work force get their pay from taxpayers -- whether directly (employees, military) or indirectly (military and other contractors).

Certainly a lot of this would be spent anyway (roads, schools), but competition would make it cheaper, better, and more innovative.

If welfare were cut way back to the essentials of people who cannot take care of themselves, if unemployment insurance were obtained privately like car and home insurance and related directly to work record, if health care were privately obtained and insurance was strictly for catastrophes, and if the poor and unskilled could help themselves by cutting hair for friends and neighbors without six months or a year of full time schooling, if neighbors could baby sit for neighbors without government regulators setting standards that parents are better able to judge -- if, if if the government would just stop making it so hard for people to help themselves --- the need for government welfare would drop like a rock. /rant

Comment Re:I can see it now... (Score 1) 610

Apparently that is the government's main request, that Apple somehow disable that auto-wipe feature so they can brute force it.

These are not like PGP passphrases which are entire sentences; most people only use a couple of words.

I thought of creating a passphrase in a different language, but (at least then) that input screen has to come so early in the boot process that no alternate keyboards were available.

Comment Re:Black Teeth Is The New Fad (Score 1) 75

I have both gold and ceramic caps; dentist said gold is better in general since ceramic is so hard that it wears the opposite tooth, but most people don't want a gold front tooth.

I'd worry about not only the difficulty of putting in a super hard filling material, but how hard it would wear down the opposite tooth.

Comment Re:decline in leadship quality (Score 1) 289

OK, I'm coming out of cryogenic storage to tell you to shut up. You opened this subthread with *bizarrely ignorant claptrap*, and should have shut up when the first reply called you out on your lies. But now you're doubling down.

Lincoln could not be the "trigger that started the Civil War" when he was elected *after the war started*, after the majority of the Confederate states had already seceded, the last 4 were already proceeding with secession, and the Confederacy had already started shooting at the Union. Which should have been enough facts to shut you up, but I suppose you enjoy the kind of BS sometimes known as "from the South's perspective": any lie to deny the truth, however bizarrely ignorant.

Lincoln wasn't a "two-bit" lawyer prior to his political career, he was an extremely well accomplished lawyer. And he didn't have "zero experience", he had represented Illinois prominently in the US House of Representatives, and served in the Illinois House of Representatives for 8 years prior to that.

Lincoln was of course recognized as a good leader while destroying the Confederacy, being reelected to do so. That is the very definition of "recognized as good leader": reelected wartime Commander in Chief of the USA. Yes, the US press and many factions are always highly critical of any president; "universally recognized as a good leader" doesn't even belong to FDR.

Oh, how about your BS about Lincoln's "razor close" first election? Lincoln: 1,866,452; Douglas: 1,376,957; Breckinridge: 849,781; Bell: 588,789. That 489,495 margin over #2 was a *landslide* 10.4%, . What the hell are you talking about? You also said something deranged like "but if the South had been voting in the second election". What about "but if the South had freed its slaves instead of seceding"? Because they're equally nonsensical hypotheticals. And your Electoral College split 4 ways because *there were 4 candidates*, no reflection on Lincoln's leadership. But Lincoln's 180 EVs to the combined total of the other 3 at 123 EVs was an even bigger landslide than the popular vote. The words "razor close" don't describe any aspect of Lincoln's *landslide victory* over a full field, representing a new party in a large war-divided country.

And how does maintaining his commitment to Emancipation, even in face of a resigning Cabinet member (showing Lincoln's commitment to including even those who disagreed in his Cabinet, more committed than they were to staying), show anything but deeply effective leadership - as the government didn't suffer, but instead the nation was kept together even despite the war?

Your spin on all that crazy talk is that Lincoln turned out to be a leader who rose to the occasion, despite no reason to expect it. But in fact Lincoln gave all indications of being an exemplary leader from start to finish of his presidency.

Were you perhaps educated about Lincoln out of some "ex" Confederate state textbook? In any case, who taught you that when you're totally wrong you should ignore being proven wrong and double down with even more wrong?

Comment Way incomplete, and one-sied sourcing (Score 1) 3

No compensation at all? Or is several months severance pay contingent on providing said support?

Almost certainly the latter, because no matter how much the anti-capitalists try to phrase it, companies have no right to enslave former employees (or even current employees) for two years after they quit. All they cn do is offer some inducement to be on call, such as ... pay! Whether that pay is sufficient is entirely a matter between (former) employer and employer. Whether former employee's prospective new employers would want to hire someone under such a contract is a different matter too.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every young man should have a hobby: learning how to handle money is the best one. -- Jack Hurley