If you are going to drive, then drive. Enjoy the sites.
If you are flying, then you obviously have no interesting in those things. So it is in the best interest of everything to fly there as quickly as possible.
Or just watch a TV show. That's even quicker.
But you are right. I just have different tastes in entertainment. I suspect it's because while I am enjoying the ride, others care only about the destination. I get there as well, and get a whole lot more entertainment. Others settle for much much less.
I've done a lot of flying, but am an experience whore.
No, which is what doomed the Boeing Sonic Cruiser. Airlines prefer cheap operating costs over aircraft speed. In fact, they typically run their current fleet slower than the aircraft are able to cruise, for fuel economy reasons.
Many modern airliner engines have enough power to go supersonic. Obviously the airframes would make that not a good idea.
Actually, being able to get from point A to point B faster than a day's worth of travel will probably save countless billions in time and money for everyone from executives to a family going to Disney World, or Europe.
Poor modern day Americans. They have not found out yet that the journey is the important part. When I read posts like this, I think of Chevy Chase in Family Vacation, impatiently giving his family five seconds to look at the Grand Canyon because, Wally World!
I've been to Disney World twice, and Disneyland once. And what I remember is the fun I had getting to those places, not a whole lot about the places themselves, except for standing in line a lot. Sunrise in the High desert, the spookieness of the Joshua Tree National forest in the moonlight. The drive along Route 101. The Smoky mountains in Tennessee. Same with Las Vegas, My best memory of that place is Hoover Dam, which was on the way out of Vegas toward the Grand Canyon..
You didn't say how the last mile problem will be solved.
It sounds like a...law...will be needed.:|
Life, life is just not so simple for these things. I don't know if anyone remembers Broadband over Power Line, or BPL.
Probalby 6-7 years ago, Private industry figured out that "Hey! People have electrical wires runing from the power ples to their houses - last mile problem fixed. Then htey ran into some issues.
First off they were limited to DSL speeds. Then since power lines kinda make antennas, the digital signals on them ended up making for unwanted radio signals. These signals interfered with licensed services, such a Amateur Radio, and Transpolar airline flights.
So they tried notching out the affected frequencies. But if any of us paid attention in electronics class, a square wave, due to the rapid rise and fall times, is quite harminc rich, and you could notch the signal at the pole all you wanted to, the intermod and harmonics played hell still.
The Regooolaytiuns R the evilz crowd actually wanted licensed devices to have to accept interference form unlicensed devices - which would still be a regulation, but hey, you know....
They even had a few test BPL systems put up.
But this shining example of the free market ended up failing. Turns out that the digital signal doesn't survive the trip through a transformer, the inductance tends to round off the edjes of those digital square waves. So get this - they ran the BPL down the High voltage wires, and tapped an isolator onto the line right at your house for the signal to get injected into your power. The possibility of getting some serious voltage into your house power if a parts failure.
But finally, what did them in was if a delivery truck, mobile transmitter, A truck driver with a CB radio, or even a couple kids with Walkie Talkies could bring down a neighborhood BPL internet.
tl:dr version - Libertatians often have awesome ideas that don't work at all.
Municipal owned last mile to a COLO where you can buy service from anyone. Of course, you didn't actually read what I posted.
But by all means, keep promoting more government regulations to fix the problems government regulations caused, and expecting different results.
If I put up fiber, why shouhld I have ot allow anyone at all to have access to it, and undercut my business expenses I bought it, I put it up, and now some cutrate company that does nothing but move in and charge people for no work on their part?
http://farm2.staticflickr.com/...
By the way folks, don't use the many providers over one fiber stuff - to have one company put up the wire/fiber then force them to allow anyone to use and charge fo rit is about as anti-libertarian as you can get.
Unfortunately your idea the the fix for Government created problems is more government created problems.
I know exactly what you mean, unfettered by regulations, the free market has always operated in everyone's best interest. It is amazing how we go for corrupt government actions, when there has never ever been corruption, greed or avarice on the free market.
You'd think that with the inherent advantages of the free market, some country would figure it out, and show the rest of the world, or watch them go bankrupt with their silly government shenanigans. The true invisible hand of the free market, should take over the world in a few years.
Tell me, did you orgasm when Martin Shkreli bought Turing and raised the price of Daraprim from $13.50 for one dose, to $750.00? You see, for all of your theoretical government is the source of all problems, there is a real problem for free marketeers. And that problem is reality.
Unfortunately, the concept of Net Neutrality ruins such innovative business models.
Unfortunately, your puppydog and unicorn concept of the benevolent provider allowing for humanity to reach never before achieved levels of awesomness.
All it sounds like is an overall adoption of the phone carrier's unlimited data packages concept for everyone. So at home, we'll be throttled after a few Gb's, and if we want the "real unlimited" package, we can pay 2X the amount, and get 3 Gb before they throttle us.
Which in today's internet, the ads should take care of the unthrottled data after 3 or 4 page views.
In the end? If I want to keep the service I have now, it will only cost 4 times as much.
Yeah because mosquitos don't become resistant to it *eye roll* Also, "...better malaria control has generally been achieved with pyrethroids than with DDT." So no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As well, There is a substance called BT, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which is a natural substance, and pretty specific in what it kills. We use BT tablets in our pond, and while nuking the mosquitos, the fish, and especially the frogs, are not bothered a bit. Narrow spectrum heaven.
While the target insects over time can develop immunity, it appears that BT can be fine tuned once a group has developed some immunity. Not perfect, but what is.
Trouble wit DDT at base is that it is just another 'cide. While the tinfoil hat and chemtrail crowd hold it up as some sort of magic cure-all, we would have done is killed off birds, and insects would have developed resistance.
The problem is math. People love to post stories like you did, without understanding the size and scale of the problem.
You assume that if that keeps happening, then all will be fine. It won't be. The problem is larger than a solar plant here or a closed coal plant there.
Exactly. It's a lot of solar panels and wind turbines. And a non-gridded paradigm.
If coal is replaced by natural gas, that is "cleaner", in the sense that per KWh of power, you do emit less CO2, it isn't exactly a switch to green power.
If you run the coal plants out of business too quickly, you simply end up with a shortage of electricity, leading to brownouts and blackouts. Wind and solar are being installed, but it will take many years before they approach the volume required to replace the 39% of electricity the US generated from coal in 2015.
And yet we hear about utilities having issues with solar power, and private wind power. You can have all of the power shortges you want because you know that without coal, there will be shortages. I am a dumbass, because I'll just put up more solar panels and supply what I need, all owned by me, and not a utility, for which I'll just get along fine.
I think the problem is you are stuck in a paradigm from maybe 1970. Solar power is for satellites, wind doesn't exist, and battery technology is zenithed out at ni-cads.
But time doesn't stand still. I already use a lot less electricity than I used to. Everything in the house is as efficient as you can get, lights are LED, and I've increased the quality of life by doing so.It isn't just solar becoming cheaper and more efficient, the generation/use equation has the parts moving toward each other.
As soon as the battery technology gets to the right price point, I'm cutting the power company completely off. In the meantime, the more people who are not on the grid, the less power generation needed. That solves part of your problem.
Another issue is that if you don't build in an area already with electrical service - well it isn't the days of the rural electrification project any more. You get to pay the cost of the poles and running the wires. So in today's world, solar is quite often the most cost effective installation.
Slashdot moderation is like democracy. The worst form of government except for all the others. It's not broken (you can see alternate views quite frequently), it's not perfect (look at any AGW or nuclear power story to only see one side of the comments by default), but I'll be dammed if I've ever seen a better system.
Having been around the intertoobz for a long time, I've seen that slashdot has avoided the tragedy of the commons - and that is incredible in itself. The world is filled with all manner of people, some great, some who just want to watch the world burn (why oh why did one of the most insightful statements in the universe have to come from a Batman movie?)
But now we might have some 11 year old with an attitude on the same forum as a Nobel laureate. On the exact same footing. And over the years, in usenet groups and other places, I've seen that almost invariably, the 11 year old with the attitude wins. The Nobel laureate goes away.
The best example I have.
I've seen it happen in one group, a rec.radio.amateur.policy group, where a group of nuts with severe psycho-sexual problems utterly destroyed the group. One of the kooks ended up flooding the group with hundreds of "with the punce gotchya" (I have no idea) posts every day.
Well meaning people will try to correct that problem. So a moderated usenet group was formed for Amateur radio. But the moderation was so heavy handed that people just stopped posting at all. The kooks were gone, along with everyone else. Then in an effort to generate some traffic, summary links to blogs were added. Turns out to not be popular, but if you try to complain, it will get blocked, because believe it or not, complaints about the group are not allowed on the group.
By the way, they really cleaned up Dodge. Too bad it's a ghost town, with no active users.
This is what awaits people who try to make disagreement go away by blocking it. First some "I agree" posts, then nothing. Then no one reading. Congratulations folks, you won.
And that's the magic of Slashdot. It has managed to keep vibrant discussion alive without squashing trolls and flamers. Some folks will complain of course, there are people who don't like others disagreeing with them, and get really pissed if someone mods them down. And I've even done that on a few occasions, getting marked as flamebait for posting a link or somesuch. But all that means is someone with mod points disagrees with me - so be it.
It's not fashionable to say anything positive about Slashdot, but their moderation system has nailed it.
We had this transwoman that used to sit in h*s car and mastrubate outside of our school. Would he be allowed in the school today by claiming to be a transkid?
Probably as likely as anyone else caught rubbing one out in a school parking lot - which is going to be arrest and probably counseling.
You act like being transgendered is the cause - or the effect - of the person's pervyness.
Rest assured that there are plenty of heterosexual males who choke their woman loving little chickens in parking lots. Seems like several every year are caught in my hometown. The police have to be plenty embarrassed to have that arrest.
And who knows why those people do that? Maybe almost getting caught gives them a thrill or something. But it has nothing to do with sexual identity, or gender.
Yes. Does she have a dick? Because then double yes.
No - she's had the complete changeover She has no tallywhacker.
Putting that aside, they could walk into a ladies room and no one would care unless they told them, but they've had enough work that it wouldn't cause a problem because they're not obviously men jammed into a dress. That's not, however, even close to the norm and you know it. If that was the average man who is trying to look like a woman, then I doubt anyone would care. That's not the case. You don't make the law for the ones who manage to get reconstructed into reasonable looking facsimiles of females.
But dear sir, I'm not making the argument, the people who are moritifed and believe that men are suddenly going to go harass women in bathrooms and then claim they identify as women is what they and probably you are so fearful of.
And as for getting beat up in bathrooms, and your horror, just imagine what gays and transgenders go through. I doubt they'd have much sympathy for the stramen of the fearful.
MOck might be killed for going into a men's room, and you brush it off like so what? Welcome to not only being consumed by fear, but pray thet you never have a gay child of grandchild who is subjected to the special treat the fearful might perform on him or her.
I have a number of gay friends and work colleagues , NONE of them have ever "hit on me".
An interesting topic. I have a number of gay friends, mostly people who you wouldn't immediately figure to be gay, and a few flamboyant ones. Normally I find the flamboyant ones a little annoying - in the same way girly girls annoy me.
But none have hit on me, and all understand my gender prefs - and much without even discussing it. We just sit around and talk, maybe enjoy a beer. Watch some Television sports or something.
But one thing I can tell everyone is that there are a lot more gays than the small percentage that usd to be quoted.
I wonder though, why those who are outraged at the idea of say, Janet Mock going into a restroom with women, aren't all that whiny about using a urinal beside someone who might enjoy having sex with them.
At the worst they're not exactly dangerous...but...Imagine if one day you met Richard Simmons, and he kept trying to find excuses to start a conversation with you and wouldn't ever leave you alone. This is what it feels like when you have two college classes with a gay guy that keeps trying to flirt with you. Or at least, that was my particular experience.
Creepy, huh. A lot of women have that issue with guys as well. Some people are just creepy.
I thought Libs were all for science. Where is the science in pretending a dude, with a dick and male chromosomes, is a woman?
Not quite certain what your point is, Your supposed liberal result of allowing transgenders in womens room is a pervy male, who identifies as male, Not a transgender.
Pervy males have done this kind of pervy stuff for years and years.
Point is you are using the conept of people only going into restrooms to have sex. Stop that! A transgender woman is almost certainly just going into the restroom, and just using it. And if she is going into the bathroom to look to have sex - what of lesbians? They are probably more interested in the other people's lady parts.
And if you check out the dates, these perv guys were dressing as women to work their pervy magic a while back, before even supreme court rulings on gay marriage or gender equity.
Anyhow, would you force this person to use a mens room? http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-...http://www4.pictures.zimbio.co...
And she's probably going to just do her business and leave. If she wanted to engage in sexy time in a bathroom (yuk) she'd probably go in the men's room.
People who hold views that are contrary to the majority are targets for abuse. Moderation promotes groupthink. Take Slashdot for example.
You don't understand Slashdot's moderation method? And no one is blocked - ever. browse at a lower mod level, and accept that not everyone will agree with you.
You might even be exhibiting a little bit of Guardianesque ideas, in that you don't seem to want anyone to disagree with you.
We've had a number of posters here lately that are pissed that someone replies, and disagrees with them. Life just doesn't work that way, and Slashdot has come up with the best way to exist with the tragedy of the commons ever.
I'm still offering tours of what the coal mining companies did in the counties above mine.
Do you drive there?
Usually
Do you advertise these tours on the internet using power?
Just on slashdot for people who bloviate about how regulations are evil. Whatever you are trying to prove, you are failing miserably.
Companies don't pollute, they provide a product that the market demands. YOU and I are the ones who are doing the polluting.
This is bizzare. So the profit motive doesn't come into play at all? These companies who in the late 1800's until the mid 1900's were run bereft of regulations, and after stripping off a section of coal, they either simply left it, or even better, declared bankruptcy. Then a close relative would start up a new business doing the same thing. After 7 years, rinse and repeat.
Back in the day, their largest customers were other companies, and consumerism hardly existed at all. They didn't have to clean up after themselves, and they didn't.
Riiight, another blinding insight from the resident genius.
You provide a hallmark example of presuming you are intelligent because you're a lefty nutcase, and the nuttier you get the smarter you think you are.
Thin skinned little snowflake arent ya?
While I'm not actually a lefty (except by wingnut standards) It's so interesting that people who castigate anyone who doesn't agree with them as a lefty or socialists are...
so.. damn.. sensitive. I mean sweet jeebus on a hallmark card, once upon a time a right winger was considered the strong silent type, a Waynesque individual, who rode out the ups and downs of life with aplomb.
Now it's getting hard to tell you all from SJW's, everything upsets y'all so badly.
Anyhow thanks for playing, if you get all pissed off because people disagree with you - which is what modding down is, you really need to get to infowars or something. Be among only your own kind, and people with different opinions won't intrude upon your sensitive disposition. Or stick around here and have some discussion with people who might not always agree with ya.
So why isn't the minimum amount of time that a yellow light must be shown fixed by law based on scientific reasons (e.g. current speed limit, expected reaction time of a worst-case, legal driver, etc.)?
Because then they cannot generate more revenue. These redlight camera outfits are not there to uphold the law. The are there to make a profit. When you are there to make a profit, at least in America, you have to make more profit this quarter than last quarter.
Apparently the results of the yellow light shortening has been after it is implemented, drivers hopon the sprags as soon as they see one, treating it as a red light. This has resulted in more rear ending accidents, as the number one sport in the US is tailgaiting so closely that you owe the person in front of you at least a dinner and a movie.
http://time.com/3643077/red-li...
Slashdot Mirror
If you are going to drive, then drive. Enjoy the sites.
If you are flying, then you obviously have no interesting in those things. So it is in the best interest of everything to fly there as quickly as possible.
Or just watch a TV show. That's even quicker.
But you are right. I just have different tastes in entertainment. I suspect it's because while I am enjoying the ride, others care only about the destination. I get there as well, and get a whole lot more entertainment. Others settle for much much less.
I've done a lot of flying, but am an experience whore.
No, which is what doomed the Boeing Sonic Cruiser. Airlines prefer cheap operating costs over aircraft speed. In fact, they typically run their current fleet slower than the aircraft are able to cruise, for fuel economy reasons.
Many modern airliner engines have enough power to go supersonic. Obviously the airframes would make that not a good idea.
Actually, being able to get from point A to point B faster than a day's worth of travel will probably save countless billions in time and money for everyone from executives to a family going to Disney World, or Europe.
Poor modern day Americans. They have not found out yet that the journey is the important part. When I read posts like this, I think of Chevy Chase in Family Vacation, impatiently giving his family five seconds to look at the Grand Canyon because, Wally World!
I've been to Disney World twice, and Disneyland once. And what I remember is the fun I had getting to those places, not a whole lot about the places themselves, except for standing in line a lot. Sunrise in the High desert, the spookieness of the Joshua Tree National forest in the moonlight. The drive along Route 101. The Smoky mountains in Tennessee. Same with Las Vegas, My best memory of that place is Hoover Dam, which was on the way out of Vegas toward the Grand Canyon..
You didn't say how the last mile problem will be solved. It sounds like a...law...will be needed. :|
Life, life is just not so simple for these things. I don't know if anyone remembers Broadband over Power Line, or BPL. Probalby 6-7 years ago, Private industry figured out that "Hey! People have electrical wires runing from the power ples to their houses - last mile problem fixed. Then htey ran into some issues.
First off they were limited to DSL speeds. Then since power lines kinda make antennas, the digital signals on them ended up making for unwanted radio signals. These signals interfered with licensed services, such a Amateur Radio, and Transpolar airline flights.
So they tried notching out the affected frequencies. But if any of us paid attention in electronics class, a square wave, due to the rapid rise and fall times, is quite harminc rich, and you could notch the signal at the pole all you wanted to, the intermod and harmonics played hell still. The Regooolaytiuns R the evilz crowd actually wanted licensed devices to have to accept interference form unlicensed devices - which would still be a regulation, but hey, you know....
They even had a few test BPL systems put up.
But this shining example of the free market ended up failing. Turns out that the digital signal doesn't survive the trip through a transformer, the inductance tends to round off the edjes of those digital square waves. So get this - they ran the BPL down the High voltage wires, and tapped an isolator onto the line right at your house for the signal to get injected into your power. The possibility of getting some serious voltage into your house power if a parts failure.
But finally, what did them in was if a delivery truck, mobile transmitter, A truck driver with a CB radio, or even a couple kids with Walkie Talkies could bring down a neighborhood BPL internet.
tl:dr version - Libertatians often have awesome ideas that don't work at all.
There is no need to continue reading.
Well Okay. Shouldn't you have wrote that after your last sentence, because I don't know what else you wrote?
Municipal owned last mile to a COLO where you can buy service from anyone. Of course, you didn't actually read what I posted.
But by all means, keep promoting more government regulations to fix the problems government regulations caused, and expecting different results.
If I put up fiber, why shouhld I have ot allow anyone at all to have access to it, and undercut my business expenses I bought it, I put it up, and now some cutrate company that does nothing but move in and charge people for no work on their part?
Yes, Simpletons. We ought to have 25 people selling the last mile
Here's the libertarian version of network delivery - New York City:
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-...
https://keithyorkcity.files.wo...
Lest we think it can't happen today - in India:
http://farm2.staticflickr.com/... By the way folks, don't use the many providers over one fiber stuff - to have one company put up the wire/fiber then force them to allow anyone to use and charge fo rit is about as anti-libertarian as you can get.
Unfortunately your idea the the fix for Government created problems is more government created problems.
I know exactly what you mean, unfettered by regulations, the free market has always operated in everyone's best interest. It is amazing how we go for corrupt government actions, when there has never ever been corruption, greed or avarice on the free market.
You'd think that with the inherent advantages of the free market, some country would figure it out, and show the rest of the world, or watch them go bankrupt with their silly government shenanigans. The true invisible hand of the free market, should take over the world in a few years.
Tell me, did you orgasm when Martin Shkreli bought Turing and raised the price of Daraprim from $13.50 for one dose, to $750.00? You see, for all of your theoretical government is the source of all problems, there is a real problem for free marketeers. And that problem is reality.
Unfortunately, the concept of Net Neutrality ruins such innovative business models.
Unfortunately, your puppydog and unicorn concept of the benevolent provider allowing for humanity to reach never before achieved levels of awesomness.
All it sounds like is an overall adoption of the phone carrier's unlimited data packages concept for everyone. So at home, we'll be throttled after a few Gb's, and if we want the "real unlimited" package, we can pay 2X the amount, and get 3 Gb before they throttle us.
Which in today's internet, the ads should take care of the unthrottled data after 3 or 4 page views.
In the end? If I want to keep the service I have now, it will only cost 4 times as much.
4. Profit!
Yeah because mosquitos don't become resistant to it *eye roll* Also, "...better malaria control has generally been achieved with pyrethroids than with DDT." So no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As well, There is a substance called BT, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which is a natural substance, and pretty specific in what it kills. We use BT tablets in our pond, and while nuking the mosquitos, the fish, and especially the frogs, are not bothered a bit. Narrow spectrum heaven.
While the target insects over time can develop immunity, it appears that BT can be fine tuned once a group has developed some immunity. Not perfect, but what is.
It would be true if he had said "malaria"
Trouble wit DDT at base is that it is just another 'cide. While the tinfoil hat and chemtrail crowd hold it up as some sort of magic cure-all, we would have done is killed off birds, and insects would have developed resistance.
DDT isn't majick, folks.
$1.2 billion isn't exactly a lot of money...
The problem is math. People love to post stories like you did, without understanding the size and scale of the problem.
You assume that if that keeps happening, then all will be fine. It won't be. The problem is larger than a solar plant here or a closed coal plant there.
Exactly. It's a lot of solar panels and wind turbines. And a non-gridded paradigm.
1970 called and thanked you for the support.
If coal is replaced by natural gas, that is "cleaner", in the sense that per KWh of power, you do emit less CO2, it isn't exactly a switch to green power.
If you run the coal plants out of business too quickly, you simply end up with a shortage of electricity, leading to brownouts and blackouts. Wind and solar are being installed, but it will take many years before they approach the volume required to replace the 39% of electricity the US generated from coal in 2015.
And yet we hear about utilities having issues with solar power, and private wind power. You can have all of the power shortges you want because you know that without coal, there will be shortages. I am a dumbass, because I'll just put up more solar panels and supply what I need, all owned by me, and not a utility, for which I'll just get along fine.
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
I think the problem is you are stuck in a paradigm from maybe 1970. Solar power is for satellites, wind doesn't exist, and battery technology is zenithed out at ni-cads.
But time doesn't stand still. I already use a lot less electricity than I used to. Everything in the house is as efficient as you can get, lights are LED, and I've increased the quality of life by doing so.It isn't just solar becoming cheaper and more efficient, the generation/use equation has the parts moving toward each other.
As soon as the battery technology gets to the right price point, I'm cutting the power company completely off. In the meantime, the more people who are not on the grid, the less power generation needed. That solves part of your problem.
Another issue is that if you don't build in an area already with electrical service - well it isn't the days of the rural electrification project any more. You get to pay the cost of the poles and running the wires. So in today's world, solar is quite often the most cost effective installation.
Times aren't just a-changin, they have changed.
pray thet you never have a gay child of grandchild who is subjected to the special treat the fearful might perform on him or her.
Not a problem. They would just have Jesus cure them of the gay.
Poe! Actually, I'm pretty sure you are being sarcastic, but some folks would give that answer.
Slashdot moderation is like democracy. The worst form of government except for all the others. It's not broken (you can see alternate views quite frequently), it's not perfect (look at any AGW or nuclear power story to only see one side of the comments by default), but I'll be dammed if I've ever seen a better system.
Having been around the intertoobz for a long time, I've seen that slashdot has avoided the tragedy of the commons - and that is incredible in itself. The world is filled with all manner of people, some great, some who just want to watch the world burn (why oh why did one of the most insightful statements in the universe have to come from a Batman movie?)
But now we might have some 11 year old with an attitude on the same forum as a Nobel laureate. On the exact same footing. And over the years, in usenet groups and other places, I've seen that almost invariably, the 11 year old with the attitude wins. The Nobel laureate goes away.
The best example I have.
I've seen it happen in one group, a rec.radio.amateur.policy group, where a group of nuts with severe psycho-sexual problems utterly destroyed the group. One of the kooks ended up flooding the group with hundreds of "with the punce gotchya" (I have no idea) posts every day.
Well meaning people will try to correct that problem. So a moderated usenet group was formed for Amateur radio. But the moderation was so heavy handed that people just stopped posting at all. The kooks were gone, along with everyone else. Then in an effort to generate some traffic, summary links to blogs were added. Turns out to not be popular, but if you try to complain, it will get blocked, because believe it or not, complaints about the group are not allowed on the group.
By the way, they really cleaned up Dodge. Too bad it's a ghost town, with no active users.
This is what awaits people who try to make disagreement go away by blocking it. First some "I agree" posts, then nothing. Then no one reading. Congratulations folks, you won.
And that's the magic of Slashdot. It has managed to keep vibrant discussion alive without squashing trolls and flamers. Some folks will complain of course, there are people who don't like others disagreeing with them, and get really pissed if someone mods them down. And I've even done that on a few occasions, getting marked as flamebait for posting a link or somesuch. But all that means is someone with mod points disagrees with me - so be it.
It's not fashionable to say anything positive about Slashdot, but their moderation system has nailed it.
We had this transwoman that used to sit in h*s car and mastrubate outside of our school. Would he be allowed in the school today by claiming to be a transkid?
Probably as likely as anyone else caught rubbing one out in a school parking lot - which is going to be arrest and probably counseling.
You act like being transgendered is the cause - or the effect - of the person's pervyness.
Rest assured that there are plenty of heterosexual males who choke their woman loving little chickens in parking lots. Seems like several every year are caught in my hometown. The police have to be plenty embarrassed to have that arrest.
And who knows why those people do that? Maybe almost getting caught gives them a thrill or something. But it has nothing to do with sexual identity, or gender.
Anyhow, would you force this person to use a mens room? http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-... http://www4.pictures.zimbio.co...
Yes. Does she have a dick? Because then double yes.
No - she's had the complete changeover She has no tallywhacker.
Putting that aside, they could walk into a ladies room and no one would care unless they told them, but they've had enough work that it wouldn't cause a problem because they're not obviously men jammed into a dress. That's not, however, even close to the norm and you know it. If that was the average man who is trying to look like a woman, then I doubt anyone would care. That's not the case. You don't make the law for the ones who manage to get reconstructed into reasonable looking facsimiles of females.
But dear sir, I'm not making the argument, the people who are moritifed and believe that men are suddenly going to go harass women in bathrooms and then claim they identify as women is what they and probably you are so fearful of.
And as for getting beat up in bathrooms, and your horror, just imagine what gays and transgenders go through. I doubt they'd have much sympathy for the stramen of the fearful.
MOck might be killed for going into a men's room, and you brush it off like so what? Welcome to not only being consumed by fear, but pray thet you never have a gay child of grandchild who is subjected to the special treat the fearful might perform on him or her.
I don't agree. And please don't say "Guardianesque" again, ever.
Ohhh, okay.
I have a number of gay friends and work colleagues , NONE of them have ever "hit on me".
An interesting topic. I have a number of gay friends, mostly people who you wouldn't immediately figure to be gay, and a few flamboyant ones. Normally I find the flamboyant ones a little annoying - in the same way girly girls annoy me.
But none have hit on me, and all understand my gender prefs - and much without even discussing it. We just sit around and talk, maybe enjoy a beer. Watch some Television sports or something.
But one thing I can tell everyone is that there are a lot more gays than the small percentage that usd to be quoted.
I wonder though, why those who are outraged at the idea of say, Janet Mock going into a restroom with women, aren't all that whiny about using a urinal beside someone who might enjoy having sex with them.
At the worst they're not exactly dangerous...but...Imagine if one day you met Richard Simmons, and he kept trying to find excuses to start a conversation with you and wouldn't ever leave you alone. This is what it feels like when you have two college classes with a gay guy that keeps trying to flirt with you. Or at least, that was my particular experience.
Creepy, huh. A lot of women have that issue with guys as well. Some people are just creepy.
Because it never happens?
If you have a dick, use the men's toilet.
I thought Libs were all for science. Where is the science in pretending a dude, with a dick and male chromosomes, is a woman?
Not quite certain what your point is, Your supposed liberal result of allowing transgenders in womens room is a pervy male, who identifies as male, Not a transgender.
Pervy males have done this kind of pervy stuff for years and years.
http://wkrn.com/2016/03/10/pol...
http://www.marshfieldnewsheral...
http://komonews.com/archive/po...
Here's a good one - a man hiding in a septic tank so he could watch women do their thing. Jeebuz! http://kfor.com/2013/07/08/man...
Point is you are using the conept of people only going into restrooms to have sex. Stop that! A transgender woman is almost certainly just going into the restroom, and just using it. And if she is going into the bathroom to look to have sex - what of lesbians? They are probably more interested in the other people's lady parts.
And if you check out the dates, these perv guys were dressing as women to work their pervy magic a while back, before even supreme court rulings on gay marriage or gender equity. Anyhow, would you force this person to use a mens room? http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-... http://www4.pictures.zimbio.co...
And she's probably going to just do her business and leave. If she wanted to engage in sexy time in a bathroom (yuk) she'd probably go in the men's room.
psst - I think she likes guys.
People who hold views that are contrary to the majority are targets for abuse. Moderation promotes groupthink. Take Slashdot for example.
You don't understand Slashdot's moderation method? And no one is blocked - ever. browse at a lower mod level, and accept that not everyone will agree with you.
You might even be exhibiting a little bit of Guardianesque ideas, in that you don't seem to want anyone to disagree with you.
We've had a number of posters here lately that are pissed that someone replies, and disagrees with them. Life just doesn't work that way, and Slashdot has come up with the best way to exist with the tragedy of the commons ever.
I'm still offering tours of what the coal mining companies did in the counties above mine.
Do you drive there?
Usually
Do you advertise these tours on the internet using power?
Just on slashdot for people who bloviate about how regulations are evil. Whatever you are trying to prove, you are failing miserably.
Companies don't pollute, they provide a product that the market demands. YOU and I are the ones who are doing the polluting.
This is bizzare. So the profit motive doesn't come into play at all? These companies who in the late 1800's until the mid 1900's were run bereft of regulations, and after stripping off a section of coal, they either simply left it, or even better, declared bankruptcy. Then a close relative would start up a new business doing the same thing. After 7 years, rinse and repeat.
Back in the day, their largest customers were other companies, and consumerism hardly existed at all. They didn't have to clean up after themselves, and they didn't.
Riiight, another blinding insight from the resident genius.
You provide a hallmark example of presuming you are intelligent because you're a lefty nutcase, and the nuttier you get the smarter you think you are.
Thin skinned little snowflake arent ya?
While I'm not actually a lefty (except by wingnut standards) It's so interesting that people who castigate anyone who doesn't agree with them as a lefty or socialists are...
so.. damn.. sensitive. I mean sweet jeebus on a hallmark card, once upon a time a right winger was considered the strong silent type, a Waynesque individual, who rode out the ups and downs of life with aplomb.
Now it's getting hard to tell you all from SJW's, everything upsets y'all so badly.
Anyhow thanks for playing, if you get all pissed off because people disagree with you - which is what modding down is, you really need to get to infowars or something. Be among only your own kind, and people with different opinions won't intrude upon your sensitive disposition. Or stick around here and have some discussion with people who might not always agree with ya.
So why isn't the minimum amount of time that a yellow light must be shown fixed by law based on scientific reasons (e.g. current speed limit, expected reaction time of a worst-case, legal driver, etc.)?
Because then they cannot generate more revenue. These redlight camera outfits are not there to uphold the law. The are there to make a profit. When you are there to make a profit, at least in America, you have to make more profit this quarter than last quarter.
Apparently the results of the yellow light shortening has been after it is implemented, drivers hopon the sprags as soon as they see one, treating it as a red light. This has resulted in more rear ending accidents, as the number one sport in the US is tailgaiting so closely that you owe the person in front of you at least a dinner and a movie. http://time.com/3643077/red-li...
https://www.motorists.org/blog...
Red light cameras and for profit prisons are turning out to be birds of a feather. Institutionalized evil.