Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Who cares..?? (Score 1) 691

I'd say voting for the person that most closely aligns with your positions is not being a petulant child. Voting against somebody is closer to it, but decent short-term strategy. Let's put this problem of ultra-conservative justices where it really lies, at Earl Warren's feet. Without a massively powerful, activist Supreme Court, it wouldn't be that big of a deal to have conservative or liberal justices. Now, things get really complicated. When people have their guy in whatever office, they want that office to do what they want and grow their power. We've seen the legislature get weaker and the executive and judicial branches get much much stronger since the country was formed.

There are many, many more people in the legislature and it being more granular is a better representation of the people than the one or 7 members of the other branches. How did the legislature get so weak? I think it's because of people voting against the other guy instead of voting with the person that most closely aligns with their beliefs. We fall in to a two party system that naturally divides the population in half. That is it's either this guy or the guy most likely to beat this guy. The parties will always teeter around that equilibrium. People only want to give up as much as they have to to get what they want and by this process the 2 parties will always seek towards a 50/50 split of the voters.

I think everybody has a threshold for how many votes a candidate is likely to receive before voting for them. Anything less than that is throwing the vote away. When you disparage 3rd party voters, you lower the number of votes that go to 3rd party candidates and raise the number of votes for the two party system. This is then fed back in to the system so next time an election comes around it's evidence that nobody votes for 3rd parties.

So how do we get out of this? There are lots of complicated systemic ways to address the problem, but the most direct way is to support a legislature that will reign in the executive and judicial branches to lessen the sting of losing the monolithic executive branch to the guy you don't like, then start voting for the person in your legislature that you think will do the best job. This will destroy the two party system and provide more choices. Actually, I think these things are the same thing, just there is a two step process we need to go through. Step one is get the government back under control, step two is use the government to achieve progress. Actually, there is a third step too. Think long term and don't opt for the quick progress that weakens the whole system.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 4, Insightful) 174

Not exactly. You can buy your way out of needing to visit the PokeStops to get more pokeballs and other items you need. You can either drop $10 or hang out in a coffee shop that's close to a pokestop for an hour. That's actually what I really enjoy about the temporary cultural fixation on it. It feels like the first truly social game, not play alone with strangers in the basement.

Comment Re:Popular for the moment (Score 4, Interesting) 174

I do agree it will drop of dramatically in about 5 days. But, to improve longevity you continually release new features until you've turned it in to a AR version of the core games in the series. Trading comes first, new pokemon according to "season" comes next, revamped combat, etc. and you can keep a respectable community for the game. I mean, WoW has always been extremely repetitive but did and does very well. It's just not a cultural phenomenon.

Comment Re: Good solution (Score 1) 983

In general I agree with you. In this specific case, I don't think the police did anything wrong. If the point is that they shouldn't have explosives of this type (I'm not sure of the nature of the "bomb"), I think there is at least some common ground between us. However, I don't think this is a good example of why they shouldn't.

I think drug raids, non-violent situations, situations without an imminent threat or situations where they are forcing imminent threats are better examples. I don't know if not allowing them access is the right solution, but it is past time to revisit how we police and what acts are punishable at a professional level and what acts are punishable as criminal offenses. At the very least it should be a criminal act to use a remote controlled bomb on somebody that isn't an imminent threat, and I'd say it should be criminal to knowingly put somebody who isn't a threat in to a situation that makes them one.

For example, it should be criminal to roll one of these remote controlled bombs in to somebody's house while they're sleeping because it's very likely that when they wake up and see there is a bomb there, they will instinctively act to preserve their life and sometimes instincts make dumb decisions like "I'm going to grab my gun and run out of the house waving it around before I get blown up". This would also cover situations where you storm in to a drug house with guns up, because if anybody did that but police it'd be legal to kill them, and confusion and panic can cause you not to think before shooting. Police officers with training and every day experience in going in to dangerous situations make bad calls all the time in those types of situations. The whole situation should never come up at all.

It may turn out that the cops can't handle weapons like this bomb, but I don't think this is a good situation to make that point; as I interpret that facts, he was an imminent threat. If we want to argue that point, I think that's a different argument and one that isn't likely to change anybody's mind.

Comment Re:Really? (Score 1) 983

When you're claiming you've got bombs all over the city and he's saying he's going to hurt more people what are you supposed to do? Wait him out? Wait for him to come out and start shooting again? Come the fuck on that's ridiculous. Once you've proven you're a cop killer, saying you want to kill more cops, not surrendering when you're clearly cornered, you are saying "I'm going to go down swinging". You're not about to sit there and wait till you get hungry then say "hey can I have some food?" You're going to wait until you're bored, calculating the best way to hurt more people, then acting on it. Why give him the chance?

Comment Re:Good solution (Score 5, Insightful) 983

The problem is that it's difficult to contain somebody who decides they are willing to die, which is obviously what this guy was willing to do when negotiations broke down. He'd proven he would and could kill. He wounded an officer in their shootout. So what do you do to contain him in a way that doesn't cost more lives? While police have given some of their life to their cause, their lives matter some amount greater than zero. This guys life was worth exactly nothing, he forfeited it. At any point he could've done any number of things. Using a gun to shoot him vs. using a remote controlled bomb is an arbitrary distinction.

This isn't an escalation. What is the difference between this and a sniper taking somebody out? The decision to kill from safety is the same in both cases.

Comment Re: Why is it troubling? (Score 1) 499

A couple of alternatives that are more reasonable based on your statements:

1. Ban women from teaching
2. Ban women from school, force men to go to school
3. Stop encouraging everybody to go to school and get a degree for something with such a small barrier to entry. Nearly everybody has the required equipment and information available to learn anything about computer software they want.

Comment Re:Nope (Score 2) 982

Can you provide anything more specific than this? Which games didn't work and where is the UI a mess? When I updated from 7 to 10 so I could mess around with some of the new development stuff for Universal Windows Apps and Hololens, I found that everything was pretty much the same except for a different color start menu and task bar. Wouldn't really consider downgrading because I do a lot of Microsoft development and some stuff is closed off to me without WIndows 10, and there is no real downside to having it except for maybe the privacy concerns but I'm not that concerned about it personally.

Comment Re:RFTA - It has some good points: (Score 1) 858

This is such a dumb thing to look at. These ratings tell you exactly what they measure, the mean score given to a show by all raters. To read in to it any more than that is silly. If you're trying to find out if you would like the show, then there should be some sort of predictive model that takes in a set of attributes and spits out how likely you are to like the show. You can do that yourself by thinking about what you like in shows, what actors you like, what genres you like, and looking at that information from IMDB.

Slashdot Top Deals

IOT trap -- core dumped