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. ×

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 491

Under the heading of "well, at least the garage didn't burn down"/

No, it was merely left without a roof. The house, a total loss. 7 years later, the house is rebuilt, but smaller, less wonderful, because there was less left to do with. The garage has a roof, but still smells, and is emptier, since the second car was forgone to pay for the house repairs. And the new mortgage is more than the old one. Insurance didn't pay off like it was promised to.

And all this because the neighbors built bonfires with no concern for the wind or sparks. A wind that miraculously spared some of their houses, the ones that could afford yuge yards, but built the bonfires on your property. Why would they risk being burnt? What kind of business model is that?

Comment Re:Fake news (Score 1) 491

On, come on, let's get a serious economics discussion started.

Labor Underutilization.

Opportunity costs.

The difference between more people working and fewer people working.

The impact of government assistance v. government subsidies.

Bring it on! Since I read The Wealth of Nations I've been spoiling to be schooled on modern economics and why Truman disdained them so. We are often disappointed when we learn how things actually work.

Comment Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score 1) 1032

Thanks for the comment. Looking at Dog-Cow's profile and history, I friended Dog-Cow. Worth it, hope Dog-Cow accepts me.

And why do I keep referring to Dog-Cow as Dog-Cow? I don't yet understand Dog-Cow's gender identity well enough to use any pronoun. I may never, but that's my problem. Dog-Cow either knows, or doesn't, and that's not my problem.

So I'll type a few extra characters. Feh.

Thanks again.

Comment Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score 1) 1032

Keep it coming.

No, I agree that Twitter has the right to decide how their services are used. Pretending free speech is defended by banning users who violate some terms of service is unfortunate, but Twitter cannot claim to be a forum where free speech is guaranteed. It is not, cannot be.

Being free to go elsewhere to post your speech, no matter how offensive, that is free speech. Being held to account for your speech goes along with the freedom to say whatever. You are not unaccountable. Just free. ish.

Comment Re:Trump is love (Score 1) 1032

"once he becomes president, his popularity is going to decline, we all know that, I think"

It's not about his popularity. It's about the popularity of the topic, and no matter what Trump does, even now, the Twitterverse explodes with commentary and all manner of expression.

His failure is good for Twitter. His success is good for Twitter.

Unless they actually censor his tweets. Then some of their users will follow him where he goes to post.

Yeah, this is gonna be great. Way past time for one of the Internet giants to fall. You think Twitter is unbeatable?

Comment Define 'offends' 'threatens' or 'insults' (Score 1) 1032

...and define it in objective terms.

And I'm betting you have to accept the definition of the aggrieved party. And they can, surprisingly easily, convince most anyone that most anything can be defined, by them, as offensive, threatening, or insulting.

And that's the end of speech.

No, Twitter, you can do this and become irrelevant, but you cannot do it and retain significant credibility. Which is already at risk.

Reddit is well into this, being capricious in censorship, even editing speech rather than deleting it. And Reddit is reaping the rewards of this, being left either with a user base that is offensive to so many and appealing only to an insular group insufficient to support the service, or driving reasonable users away as they realize nothing on the site can be trusted.

I encourage Twitter, though. Finish the job. Kill your service. Suicide.

Comment Re:In other news... (Score 1) 225

"The Christians mostly co-opted alcohol consumption into their religious practices because it was already culturally endemic"

Wine and strong drink are well documented in the Christian Bible, and from times long before Christianity came to be. Some Hebrew sects rejected alcohol also, most notable manifested in Samson, a Nazarite at birth. Even his mother abstained after visitation by an angel.

Alcohol was an issue for Jews well before Christ, and well before Israel even.

For all the declarations of understanding Christianity sufficiently to discredit it, few can even get the plain stories straight. C'mon, man.

Comment Re: In other news... (Score 1) 225

Buddhism rejects the concept of self or soul, but does teach that rebirth occurs, which is a difficult concept to consider - rebirth, but no continuity. So what is reborn?

But the vijñna, or commonly called in the west your consciousness, is the basis of rebirth, not a soul, but a continuum of existence. And so skirts the question of soul v existence.

All of which, to atheists, is 'magic', and dismissed.

SO, stop reading cereal boxes, and at least pick up a systematic theology text and conduct a minimal study. Or not, and harp from the back benches, a sport cherished here.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The chain which can be yanked is not the eternal chain." -- G. Fitch