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

 



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

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 1) 424

Except Barney Franks is not a cookie member of the party. He wasn't even an out-of-step member (a la Kucinich) of the party. Barney Franks was an elected *ranking* (committee member) Congressman. He is bona fide part of the in-step leadership of the party. Referring to his statements is most definitely appropriate when discussing the party's agenda.

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 1) 424

Nobody has tried to take away your guns. Stop.

Right. Just as almost no bill ever gets a veto. They only bother voting for bills which have been negotiated with the executive not to be vetoed. If they don't have the votes, they don't bother trying to do anything. If they have the votes and it serves their agenda. they will do it even if they said a million times and swore on a million bibles that they would never do it. "No one has tried it yet" is a very crude attempt to appeal to survivor bias (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...).

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 1) 424

How about keeping them out of the hands of convicted felons who lost the right to have a firearm?

Keeping them out of their hands? If it's already illegal for them to own guns, you don't additional legislature to make more guns illegal. You just need more budget for police to enforce existing laws. It's not illegal for anyone to possess blueprints to anything (unless there are IP laws involved). So felons who can't own guns, can own blueprints for guns. Once you go down the path of limiting felons' speech rights, you'll be an earshot away from other laws criminalizing unwanted or "dangerous" speech.

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 1) 424

If you are a liberal-"liberal" (so you are over 35), you might not be as much of an extremist as the modern brand of the Democratic Party (which is neo-Communist). I've heard Barney Frank (who was still in office at the time) talk with lament about the fact that Lenin (I am not making this up or exagerating... I don't have a link... I heard him say it on TV)... Lenin (!!!) wasn't able to finish the job world-wide. So calling them neo-Communist is not even an exaggeration. It's an accurate description of their long-term goals.

Comment ha? (Score 1) 424

NYTimes published full manual on making an atomic bomb in the 80's. That was deemed protected speech despite the fact that the non-proliferation treaty was more than a mere piece of paper at the time. Certainly that endangered national security. Dissemination of source code for all crypto is also considered protected (although not dissemination of compiled code). This seems to go against the standard that blueprints for making dangerous apparatus is protected. Considering that possession of a printed gun itself is protected by the 2nd amendment, how is this more dangerous than printing nuke manuals?

Comment Re:fucken neocommuncists (Score 1) 428

My guess is no, that the major function of the surge is prioritizing, not increasing demand.

I think you meant "increase in supply". And you would have to back that up. From where I am standing, everyone has a price. Lawyers would start giving Uber rides instead practicing law if the price jumped 50x. Obviously, there is some lower threshold which, when crossed, would entice people with lower earning potential to "get in on the action."

Comment Re:This was a market failure (Score 1) 428

That's the argument that war profiteers make.

And in countries in which they are allowed to make it, the population suffers less. In countries where they are not allowed to make it, mass starvations occur because of lack of the basic necessities needed to fix the destruction that war causes. Using "profiteering" as a negative is immoral -- it causes deaths, hunger, and unnecessary human suffering.

Comment Re:Insufficient sophistication (Score 2) 428

Price is information about where demand meets supply. If an emergency arises and prices are not raised, it doesn't driver the extra suppliers to resolve the problem. If prices are raised, those who would not consider giving rides otherwise, would do so for profit. This resolves emergencies faster. Forbidding to increases prices in emergencies is immoral. It prevents the aftermath of the emergency from being alleviated as soon as possible.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...