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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Double standard (Score 1) 419

But an undercover video related to abortion gets a different standard.

I am foursquare opposed to double standards under the law.

So after everything you've learned in this thread, how do you feel about states rights?

You know, the part that makes two different standards that different people in different states have to follow.

Comment Re:So 60 Minutes... (Score 1) 419

but two-party consent is not the law the prosecution should be hanging their hat on

. . . It's a well-established law on the books that was violated.

two-party consent is bullshit

Well, YES. But that's just... like... our opinion man.

If I'm a party to a conversation I should have the right to record it regardless of the consent -- or indeed, knowledge -- of any other party involved!

Rather than "at a party", I believe the term "no reasonable expectation of privacy" is more appropriate.

BUT. What the law IS versus what the law SHOULD be are two different things.

Listen, one of the reasons we even HAVE states is to test out different rulesets and find out what works, what doesn't, and for who. California and Chicago are trying out the whole "you can lie your ass off while off the record" idea. And yeah, both you and I agree that's probably just a tool for corrupt officials. But until the locals get pissed off enough about it to change it, those are the rules.

Instead, what these people should be prosecuted for is not the act of recording itself, but rather the act of slanderously misrepresenting their findings!

Instead? Rather than? How about "in addition to". Hence why they have 15 different charges against them.

Comment Re:I'll decide for myself thanks (Score 1) 253

If I can replicate the experience to a good approximation in my house why would I bother going to a theater and paying a lot of money? Big screen? Got it. Popcorn? Check. Dark room? No problem. Good sound? Probably better than most theaters. What is he really offering me that I don't already have? Give me something more if you want me to make the extra effort to go to a theater.

Oh please, you're ridiculous. Theaters offer many valuable features you simply cannot easily get at home. Here's a few:

* teenagers using cellphones
* screaming kids (esp. in R-rated movies)
* people talking about the movie
* people talking *to* the movie
* arguments between patrons
* patrons shooting each other

Going to a movie at a theater isn't about technical specs, it's about the people there, who you get to have a shared viewing experience with. That's what's so special about going to a theater, and why you can't replicate it at home. At home, it's just a dry, inhuman experience with only you there alone, or maybe 1 or 2 other people. At a theater, you have a whole room full of wonderful people to share that experience with, along with all the other great things that come with being around other humans, including the talking, screaming kids, use of cellphones with bright screens, and shootings.

Comment Re:They really don't understand. (Score 1) 297

No, they don't understand. But that's just ignorance, not idiocy.

There's nothing wrong with ignorance. It's the default state and we all start there. And these sort of classes are great for curing this sort of ignorance. The comment is from someone BEFORE taking the introductory class. If they make such a comment AFTER taking the class, then they're an idiot.

Now... coming from the First Lady... That's damn embarrassing. Don't they have anyone on their team that isn't completely ignorant? And doing this sort of promotional gig and letting slip that level of ignorance is pretty idiotic.

Comment Re: Send me money then (Score 1) 253

In my own home, I can also watch TV in bed with my arm around my girlfriend. Theater seats have immovable armrests which prevent getting close to your companion.

And yeah, it's nice being able to make any food or drink I want, instead of being limited to whatever overpriced shit they sell at the concessions stand. Not to mention being able to pause and rewind.

Comment Re:okay... (Score 2) 253

It sounds like a good idea to me, seriously. The problem is that if I do that, I'll surely go to jail for assault.

So I have a solution which will keep me from both getting angry and going to jail: I just won't go to the theater. As a bonus, I'll save a bunch of money, which I can use instead for going out to eat at a nice, quiet upscale restaurant with my girlfriend. If the theaters go out of business, then so be it. The nice restaurants don't seem to have a problem keeping customers in line and tossing out rowdy people.

Comment Re: Lesson 1 (Score 1) 297

YOU CAN!

Charitable donations are deductible. You are not taxed on that money. If you make $50K, and dontate $40K to your well-vetted (501c) private charitiy, then you are only taxes AS IF you earned a mere $10K.

This is available to everyone. The only hitch is that you have to itemize instead of taking the standard deduction.

Comment Re:"We're" loosing it? (Score 1) 341

Reading and comprehension....

What the person you responded to wrote was "It's kind of a shame that you would really think that. Confirmation bias and gullibility are not monopolized by one side of a political divide. Anyone who thinks they are always correct and clear-eyed, is simply wrong."

The "guy" part was in the post responded to, one level up and your dead on point would have been correctly leveled.

Comment Re:It's not just low skilled labor (Score 1) 380

Common sense dictates that throwing 26 million Americans off of health insurance is bad idea. Hence, the bill died without a vote in Congress.

Huh? That's not the way the media is spinning it. According to them, and to Trump and Ryan, the bill died because the "House Freedom Caucus" (a bunch of hard-line conservatives) said they'd refuse to vote for it, mainly because it wasn't conservative enough for them, not because they gave a shit about 26 million poorer Americans losing health insurance. (Ironically, many of these caucus members were elected by poorer, working-class Americans who stood to lose their health insurance as a result of their voting for ultra-conservatives, but hey, that's OK if they die from preventable health problems as long as we can ban abortion again, right?)

Comment Re:Robots will continue to win: What do we do (Score 1) 380

Extra income for other jobs too, that require actual intelligence and decisions. Also for services.

For instance, if I have the choice of going to two coffee shops, one staffed entirely by robots, and the other having a robot making food/drinks, but some cute girls delivering them to my table, I'm going to choose the latter if the price isn't that much more.

Society's in big, big trouble when femme-bots are invented though....

Comment Re:Robots will continue to win: What do we do (Score 1) 380

Live concerts are not free to produce. You have to pay for the power (and that's a lot, for all the lights and amplifiers), the equipment, and you have to rent the stage/venue. You also have to publicize it somehow or no one's going to come. They don't have to be as expensive as many are now, but someone owns that venue (and has to maintain it), and you have to pay for that if you're going to perform there. Otherwise, they'll rent it to someone else who will.

Slashdot Top Deals

The means-and-ends moralists, or non-doers, always end up on their ends without any means. -- Saul Alinsky

Working...