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


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

Comment Re:Where have I heard that before (Score 1) 609

Replying to myself - I realize that the earlier comment was slightly offtopic, given that it was focused on USian politics and not the UKian issues, but I think the overarching theme is the same.

Given a populace driven by misinformation on both sides, a margin this close cannot be considered "What the people want" in the truest sense. The whole reason for representative democracy is that people can't be bothered to get actual facts (or, barring that, some semblance of knowledge for and against an issue). We hire politicians to do that for us.

The fact that the system is populated with humans and is inherently corrupt doesn't change that any. It's still a smaller number of people who can devote considerably more time to the issue than I can, and who have resources to get the necessary information better than I can by using various news sources.

Will they fail? Absolutely. Will they fail as much as if we did phone in voting for every major decision based on which Lord / Senator danced the best? Yeah...I'm not so sure on that one.

Comment Re:Where have I heard that before (Score 1) 609

Depending on exactly what question you're asking - yes. I certainly do. Not necessarily in an argumentative way, but it's still valid.

We've got a democratic system that has two parties which have a number of wedge issues on either side. In order to stand out from the other party, each of them continues to push deeper into the territory of their respective base.

As a result, you frequently get people voting not because someone truly matches their ideological stance, but because they don't want someone who is further away from their ideologies. Instead of us having two largely similar candidates debating over nuanced policy measures and differing views of how they feel the country should proceed, we get demagoguery that demonizes the opposition and alienates a decent portion of the people who would otherwise claim to be a part of that party.

I think that with a split that is that close to 50/50 (ignoring the actual voter turnout), you have a population that cares strongly about some hot-button topics, but which probably agrees on other hot-button topics (with the results varying from person to person). Presidents seem to have this opinion that they have a mandate from the masses, when in fact they have at best the accession of a plurality.

This is both good and bad. If we saw 80% voter turnout and a 87% vote for one person, it would suggest that the other party has failed so miserably that America completely agrees on what needs to be done. In general, while the parties appear to be moving ever further apart, the average of where they are still seems to be going more or less in the direction that democrazy is suggesting that it wants to go.

Aside: I saw the typo in the last line there, and decided to keep it because, well, its apropos.

Comment Re: What's wrong with hate symbols? (Score 1) 380

And proved you are either anti-freedom yourself or a psychopath - the only types of people who would not instantly see that this is the only logical definition.

"If you don't agree with me, you're obviously crazy."

Yeah, there's the circlejerk event horizon. Nothing left for me to do here, so I'll just let you get back to fapping to your slightly-right-of-Ghenghis-Khan Harpy-queen.

Comment Re:ICANN, you failed... (Score 1) 146

I doubt it'll make much difference in the long run, after seeing how .top, .info, etc.. turned out - just more playgrounds for spammers while the registrars get to rake in fees for useless registrations for "brand protection". Legit companies will still have a .com, legit organizations will still have a .org (or a .com), etc.

Maybe after some time, one or two of these new TLDs will get some legitimacy. I expect, though, this will just end up making me spend that much more time updating my check_helo_access and smtpd_sender_restrictions pcre files...


Comment Re: What's wrong with hate symbols? (Score 1) 380

Neither group gives an airborne copulation at a ventrally rotating toroid about "liberty", they just declare their own particular doctrine to be $liberty and then claim the other side is anti-$liberty, which becomes semi-true if you allow for inline evaluation. It's just like the zealous supporters of a certain licensing when they declare that their license is "free as in freedom*" (*using our specially crafted definition of freedom). If that redefinition is rejected, there's nothing on either side but propaganda and bullshit.

Comment Re:Alternative (Score 1) 917

First depends on what resources you're talking about. There's plenty of worry about the sustainability of quite a few resources, including ones which will likely be further used up in making this robot worker army.

Second, recycling offers neither 100% efficient returns, nor is it free.

Third and fourth are wishful thinking, at best.

Comment Re:Accept the fact that technology moves on. (Score 1) 917

It's interesting that the supporting dialog in Star Trek:TNG reveals most people don't work with technology. Since robots in the ST universe do all the manual labour, it leaves one asking what do all those humanoids produce?

Preachy monologues?

Comment Re: What's wrong with hate symbols? (Score 1) 380

Freedom of association applies to people not businesses

Then why did you bring up "Freedom of Association" in the first place, since we're talking about two businesses?

Whether its moral or not can be debateable but its never illegal

I never said it was illegal, and I don't care if it is illegal - AFAIC, the US legal system has as much to do with "right vs wrong" as who the next Dr. Who companion is has on the orbit of Neptune.

and the right does it just as often.

If you're trying to make a case for being better than them, the kindergarten playground defense is probably not the best way to go about it.

But apparently boycotts are only oppresive when the left does it ?

You also didn't answer the question of why it's there's no moral (i.e. completely orthogonal to the law) contradiction in using "Freedom of Association" to ostracize and/or deny livelihoods to people who do or believe what you consider to be reprehensible things (as long as they're not religious reprehensible things), and someone else doing the same thing for doing or believing things they find equally reprehensible.

You're the only one talking about "right and left" and oppression. I'm talking about internal consistency, and the all to common lack of it in this position.

Slashdot Top Deals

But it does move! -- Galileo Galilei