Sure, securing the technology side of things is essential but delivering power to people requires most of your infrastructure to be left out in the open... much of it in remote areas and unattended. Quadruple factor authentication, 200 character passwords, and air gaps don't really matter when some guy with a.22 can bring your system down.
Where do people get the idea that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with protecting us from a tyrannical government?
The Constitution give us the means of changing government peacefully. If you don't like the government we've elected, you don't get the right to start a shooting war. That's called treason.
If government breaks down to the point where the Constitution becomes invalid, why do we care what the 2nd Amendment of it is?
Also, "the State" is us. We are the government. I know we lose sight of that from time to time but we still elect people to govern on our behalf.
I tend to view the 2nd Amendment as the choice between a standing army or an armed populace. Now we have both. Joy.
I once watched a show on the National Geographic channel where they asked a question before a commercial break and would then answer it when they came back. A little cliff hanger, I guess.
This one was "Scientists believe the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs landed on which continent?"
They came back with the answer "Central America, right next to the Yucatan Pensinsula". Which is a pretty epic failure for the National GEOGRAPHIC channel to find something that's not really a continent, and even if it was, it still wouldn't have been right since Mexico is pretty firmly in North America anyway.
Are we still pretending that donating money to prevent American citizens from marrying the person they love is just a "political belief"?
You know what would be really shitty? Someone codifying into law a political belief that denies a group of citizens the ability to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated spouse.
Look, I disagree with plenty of things people believe or say. We agree to disagree and move on with our lives. Actively donating money to bigoted causes that seek legalize your views at the expense of mine crosses the line of polite disagreement into "You're an asshole."
For the love of god, I hate this argument. Stop it. Just stop. You're not half as clever as you think you are.
There are lots of ideas that we shouldn't tolerate. Enslaving other people, for instance. Killing other people because of their religion. Things like that and many many others.
But you go on thinking you're the clever one by pointing out that it's technically "intolerance" if you speak out against those things. My, aren't you smart.
So what I hear you saying is that it's ok to sit by when people make laws preventing a black man from marrying a white woman. Let's not rock the boat there and recognize that we all have precious opinions and none of them are more right than others.
Or it's OK that little Billy doesn't want to sit next to that wetback in his classroom. After all, we wouldn't want him to think we were intolerant of his unique view of the world.
No no no, you're right. We've got to make sure we include all opinions and make sure we treat them as equally valid.
Or we can continue to fight bigotry where we find it and shrug off people like you that do mental gymnastics to define "tolerance" in a way that no one else does.
Yes, it's good for good ideas to be challenged by a bad idea now and then.
The problem is that a good idea challenged by a bad idea, a discussion occurs, evidence is presented, bad idea is shown to be a bad idea, and good idea is vindicated. And then 5 minutes later the same bad idea is presented. And then 5 minutes after that, the same bad idea is trotted out. And then five minutes after that, again. And again. And again. And again.
A lot of firearm enthusiasts will insist that it would be impossible to keep a class of firearms out of criminals' hands when we have evidence that we have already successfully done so. We have legislated an entire class of firearms into irrelevance.
Is it hard to imagine we couldn't do the same to another class of weapons? I'm sure machine guns weren't nearly as prevalent as other classes of firearms but let's not pretend that the regulation of machine guns hasn't been effective at keeping them out of the hands of criminals.
Not to mention the logical problems of saying something like "if we just remove all the southern states, the US is actually pretty liberal!" or "if you take out all the inner city schools, our scores are on par with the rest of the world!"
Slashdot Mirror
My favorite is Rocking Around the Christmas Tree
"Later we'll have some fuckin' pie and do some caroling"
I think Apple is dropping the ball by not even offering a smaller sized iPhone.
Sure, securing the technology side of things is essential but delivering power to people requires most of your infrastructure to be left out in the open... much of it in remote areas and unattended. Quadruple factor authentication, 200 character passwords, and air gaps don't really matter when some guy with a .22 can bring your system down.
Where do people get the idea that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with protecting us from a tyrannical government?
The Constitution give us the means of changing government peacefully. If you don't like the government we've elected, you don't get the right to start a shooting war. That's called treason.
If government breaks down to the point where the Constitution becomes invalid, why do we care what the 2nd Amendment of it is?
Also, "the State" is us. We are the government. I know we lose sight of that from time to time but we still elect people to govern on our behalf.
I tend to view the 2nd Amendment as the choice between a standing army or an armed populace. Now we have both. Joy.
Is this the part where we confuse socialism with communism?
I once watched a show on the National Geographic channel where they asked a question before a commercial break and would then answer it when they came back. A little cliff hanger, I guess.
This one was "Scientists believe the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs landed on which continent?"
They came back with the answer "Central America, right next to the Yucatan Pensinsula". Which is a pretty epic failure for the National GEOGRAPHIC channel to find something that's not really a continent, and even if it was, it still wouldn't have been right since Mexico is pretty firmly in North America anyway.
Fuck you and your political baiting, libertarian fantasy world, clickbait, NON-TECH bullshit this last year.
Where are the smart techies hanging out these days? I enjoy hearing them talk shop.
It's turned into a bunch of paranoid libertarians trying to one up each other with how outraged they are.
Then again, that's my reaction to a lot of things, so....
No, it's not the whole point, you ninny.
The point is to defend the country if any foreign invaders showed up. When you don't have a standing army, you're vulnerable.
You shitheads with traitorous streaks need to find somewhere else to engage in your fantasies.
Not to be "that guy" but I do kind of chuckle that there are connotations to the man's last name.
Are we still pretending that donating money to prevent American citizens from marrying the person they love is just a "political belief"?
You know what would be really shitty? Someone codifying into law a political belief that denies a group of citizens the ability to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated spouse.
Look, I disagree with plenty of things people believe or say. We agree to disagree and move on with our lives. Actively donating money to bigoted causes that seek legalize your views at the expense of mine crosses the line of polite disagreement into "You're an asshole."
Wow, that's fantastic.
You think gay marriage is like incest.
Good for you.
Yes.
Sort of like if I donate $1000 to save the pandas its ok but if I donate $1000 to shoot pandas, people get bent out of shape.
Or contributing $1000 to get more minorities to vote as opposed to $1000 to prevent minorities from voting.
Or contributing $1000 to clean up a local park vs $1000 to dump more trash in a local park.
Or $1000 to fix potholes vs $1000 to create more potholes.
Should I go on?
Yes, there are certain things you could contribute money to that will be OK when contributing to the other side is not OK.
Really? You're making the argument that you never know what you're contributing to when you donate $1000 to getting Prop 8 passed?
These days, it's hard to figure out which side of the argument a statement like this falls on.
...or preventing him from marrying the person he's in love with.
For the love of god, I hate this argument. Stop it. Just stop. You're not half as clever as you think you are.
There are lots of ideas that we shouldn't tolerate. Enslaving other people, for instance. Killing other people because of their religion. Things like that and many many others.
But you go on thinking you're the clever one by pointing out that it's technically "intolerance" if you speak out against those things. My, aren't you smart.
This shakes my world view to its very core.
Also, whoever decided to auto-play audio on Slashdot should be fired.
Wow, that's a mighty high horse you're on there.
So what I hear you saying is that it's ok to sit by when people make laws preventing a black man from marrying a white woman. Let's not rock the boat there and recognize that we all have precious opinions and none of them are more right than others.
Or it's OK that little Billy doesn't want to sit next to that wetback in his classroom. After all, we wouldn't want him to think we were intolerant of his unique view of the world.
No no no, you're right. We've got to make sure we include all opinions and make sure we treat them as equally valid.
Or we can continue to fight bigotry where we find it and shrug off people like you that do mental gymnastics to define "tolerance" in a way that no one else does.
Yay for capitalism.
Being a dick isn't illegal. People calling you a dick and making sure everyone knows about it isn't either.
Sorry if I don't feel a lot of sympathy for a bully getting bullied.
Yes, it's good for good ideas to be challenged by a bad idea now and then.
The problem is that a good idea challenged by a bad idea, a discussion occurs, evidence is presented, bad idea is shown to be a bad idea, and good idea is vindicated. And then 5 minutes later the same bad idea is presented. And then 5 minutes after that, the same bad idea is trotted out. And then five minutes after that, again. And again. And again. And again.
Maybe you could help us out by showing us where we can find predictions from past IPCC reports.
Exactly. Thank you for making the point.
A lot of firearm enthusiasts will insist that it would be impossible to keep a class of firearms out of criminals' hands when we have evidence that we have already successfully done so. We have legislated an entire class of firearms into irrelevance.
Is it hard to imagine we couldn't do the same to another class of weapons? I'm sure machine guns weren't nearly as prevalent as other classes of firearms but let's not pretend that the regulation of machine guns hasn't been effective at keeping them out of the hands of criminals.
Wow, you do know what you said was racist, right?
Not to mention the logical problems of saying something like "if we just remove all the southern states, the US is actually pretty liberal!" or "if you take out all the inner city schools, our scores are on par with the rest of the world!"