×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Single Group Dominates Second Round of Anti Net-Neutrality Comment Submissions

silfen Re:I'd expect Fawkes masks to start making stateme (160 comments)

Yet there is nothing small that can prevent corporations suck you dry.

Sure there is: you don't give them your money.

The only corporations that actively "suck you dry" are the corporations that the government gives artificial monopolies to.

State on the other hand is the only force that helps capitalism kind of work. Without state there is only tribal warfare like in Somalia.

Somalia: anarchy.

Capitalism: state guarantees free markets, equality before the law, and freedom from physical violence, and the rest is up to you.

Your/EU vision: state forces people to do things and buy things "for the good of the people" and for the good of corporations in bed with the state.

I think however if not EU our arses would be as painful as they are now.

Without the EU, Europeans would be killing each other again by the millions. That makes the EU a tremendous advance over what Europe used to be like historically. It doesn't make the EU a good steward of democracy or the economy.

yesterday
top

Single Group Dominates Second Round of Anti Net-Neutrality Comment Submissions

silfen Re:highly tendentious language (160 comments)

Yes, I know. It's "News for Nerds". People here hate the MIT engineers advocating fiscal prudence and social liberalism, and love the sociopathic Hungarian Nazi collaborators and manipulator of the global financial system.

yesterday
top

Single Group Dominates Second Round of Anti Net-Neutrality Comment Submissions

silfen Re:I'd expect Fawkes masks to start making stateme (160 comments)

I've paid $60/month for 60 Mbps in Silicon Valley, and $30/month for 50 Mbps in a smaller town, and I always take Internet-only.

Perhaps you need to do a bit more shopping. Because "capitalism free markets MURICA".

yesterday
top

Single Group Dominates Second Round of Anti Net-Neutrality Comment Submissions

silfen Re:I'd expect Fawkes masks to start making stateme (160 comments)

Yet, the UK generally ranks slightly below the US in average connection speeds.

http://www.netindex.com/downlo...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

So, you got lucky, and other people apparently got unlucky.

Even if we look at your individual situation, the question is: what's your salary relative to what you would be making in the US, what taxes do you pay, what other fees do you pay (e.g., TV licensing fees), etc.? And is the UK really an example of a highly regulated system, or is it more like the US and your service is due to competition?

yesterday
top

Single Group Dominates Second Round of Anti Net-Neutrality Comment Submissions

silfen Re:I'd expect Fawkes masks to start making stateme (160 comments)

Um, "Rick in China" you are a privileged Westerner living the life of the urban elite in a third world country. Your Internet is effectively subsidized on the backs of a few hundred million Chinese peasants.

Of course, that's what you want for the US too: you want to be a member of an educated, well connected urban elite, and screw the rest of the country. I'd call you a "communist shill", but I doubt you're even smart enough for that. You're just greedy, privileged, and ignorant.

yesterday
top

Single Group Dominates Second Round of Anti Net-Neutrality Comment Submissions

silfen Re:I'd expect Fawkes masks to start making stateme (160 comments)

most europeans do not have lower incomes than the US. they have higher,

You can't even be bothered to do minimal fact checking:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

The only European countries with higher median household incomes than the US are Luxembourg, Norway, and Switzerland. And taken as a whole, Europe or the EU are dismal. You can reach similar conclusions by looking at individual disposable incomes, or GDP per capita, or any number of other measures.

and they have a higher purchasing power parity.

That statement doesn't even make basic economic sense.

the liar and fool is you, as nothing you just stated is factual.

As you just demonstrated again: you live in a fact-free fantasy world and are economically illiterate.

yesterday
top

Single Group Dominates Second Round of Anti Net-Neutrality Comment Submissions

silfen Re:Curious (160 comments)

I wonder why they felt the need to spam the submissions

There is no evidence they "spammed" anything. All the analysis found is that a large number of submissions used some common language.

yesterday
top

Single Group Dominates Second Round of Anti Net-Neutrality Comment Submissions

silfen Re:I'd expect Fawkes masks to start making stateme (160 comments)

prices 2-3 times as high as the other side of the atlantic, service an order of magnitude slower than the other side of the atlantic, and double charging both the sender and receiver for data...

Bullshit. That's not even true to the already shoddy analysis of the New American Foundation. And it neglects the PPP and lower incomes of Europeans. And to the degree that prices seem lower, people are simply paying higher taxes, which then go on to subsidize big European corporations that are buddies with European governments and provide those services. If you think the Comcast/Time Warner "monopoly" is bad, you haven't been screwed over by European telecoms, which is far worse. But liars and idiots like you will manage to bring us even more of that European crony capitalism than we already have.

yesterday
top

Single Group Dominates Second Round of Anti Net-Neutrality Comment Submissions

silfen highly tendentious language (160 comments)

What they are saying is that a lot of letters sent in to comment on net neutrality have been derived from a small set of sample letters. That doesn't mean they represent astroturfing, it merely means that a lot of people who sent in letters founds those sample letters to be a good starting point and in agreement with their views.

yesterday
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

silfen Re:An entirely typical argument (1037 comments)

Do you believe we aren't?

No, I don't believe that, I know it. How? Because I have lived in a totalitarian superstate, and it's entirely different.

3 days ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

silfen Re:Freedom of choice (1037 comments)

Similarly, we should not be free to endanger public health with disease. If you want to remain unvaccinated, do so in your own backwoods shack, away from us. Thanks.

But that is exactly what vaccination requirements don't to: they say "even if you live in your own backwoods shack, you still must get vaccinated".

I think it's fine for schools, communities, even shopping malls to say that you can only enter if you are vaccinated. That's freedom of association. It is not OK for a country or state to say that as a matter of citizenship, you must inject stuff into your body, no matter what.

5 days ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

silfen Re:Here we go again... (1037 comments)

Lots of time, money, and effort has been spent studying vaccines in the wake of Dr. Andrew "brought the medical profession into disrepute" Wakefield's original paper (which has since been retracted along with his UK license to practice medicine).

Wakefield made generic and nonsensical claims about dangers of vaccines. People now respond with generic and nonsensical claims about the benefits of vaccines. Both sides are wrong. You have to look at vaccines one at a time to determine whether they are safe and effective.

Each vaccine mandate should require a separate, public debate and separate legislative act because establishing the principle that government can mandate citizens to inject arbitrary proteins into their body without legislative action is fundamentally wrong.

5 days ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

silfen Re:An entirely typical argument (1037 comments)

The only illusion here is your illusion that you have a choice.

By your reasoning, we might as well turn ourselves into a totalitarian superstate. After all, all the freedoms we have day-to-day are just an "illusion" anyway since under exceptional circumstances, they could be taken away.

5 days ago
top

Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

silfen bad precedent, better alternative (1037 comments)

This debate isn't about health or religion, it's about power. You can see this by noting that the debate isn't weighing the cost and benefits for specific vaccines, it's about vaccine requirements in general, requirements that can likely be increased simply through regulation based on the vote of some panel. It's about whether society can force you to have substances injected into every citizen because a few government experts decide that it's the right thing to do.

Sometimes we don't have a choice to force people to do things with their body against their will, but that is an extreme measure. A much simpler way of achieving the same goal is to give individual employers, schools, towns, and communities the right and ability to require documentation of vaccination to allow your presence on premises. That achieves pretty much the same goal as a universal vaccination requirement, but it is far less draconian.

Although such restrictions achieve pretty much the same goal, they are rooted in the principle of freedom of association. Freedom of association is a good principle that we should uphold because it's a democratic and distributed principle of government. The principle that government can inject stuff into anybody's body at any time because some panel says it's a good thing to do is a bad principle, because it is centralized and prone to abuse.

(Forced vaccination is also not all that effective in achieving what its proponents claim. If you are in a population with a suppressed immune system, widespread vaccination will not protect you from disease, for the reason the article mentions: vaccinations are not completely effective anyway, and outbreaks happen even in completely vaccinated populations. In addition, there are many other diseases we can't vaccinated against. So, anybody at risk needs to control their exposure to other people anyway and no vaccination mandate is going to change that.)

5 days ago
top

Congress Passes Bill Allowing Warrantless Forfeiture of Private Communications

silfen Re:Everyone who blamed Bush for everything... (378 comments)

Voting third party may not bring in "better", but it will at least do SOMETHING different than the Repubs and Dems

Although voting third party may be a last resort, you should really pay more attention to primaries in either party. The differences between primary candidates within a party are often as big if not bigger than between parties.

about a week ago
top

Displaced IT Workers Being Silenced

silfen Re:Maybe it's time for wage tariffs? (398 comments)

You seem to want to have it both ways, first arguing that foreign workers are less efficient, and then arguing that they are less expensive for the same work.

If they are less efficient, then we don't need visa rules because companies won't hire them; Microsoft knows better than USCIS what kind of workers Microsoft needs.

If foreign workers are both willing and able to do the same work as American workers for less money, then keeping them out of the country won't help, because they will simply compete with American workers from overseas, usually with lower overhead and less regulation to boot.

If you impose both tariffs on products and restrict the movement of labor, you do indeed raise the salary of US workers, but it doesn't help because prices also rise, and in addition you lose the benefits of comparative advantage.

So, I don't see how any of what you say translates into "we must restrict H-1b visas" or "we must have wage tariffs"; generally, restricting or taxing either the movement of goods or of labor makes society worse off overall, although special interests may benefit.

about a week ago
top

Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

silfen Re:When 9 votes are required to send it ... (1128 comments)

The irony is that the despicable British masters did away with that barbaric practice decades before this liberty-lovin' new nation, and they accomplished it without killing additional hundreds of thousands.

The British got rid of it because they didn't need slaves anymore; mechanization had created an impoverished and desperate underclass that was much easier to exploit without the responsibilities that come along with owning slaves. And racism and oppression continued to be government policies in much of the European colonial empires until the 20th century.

Enforcement refers to the law. What is so difficult to grasp about this?

I have seen no evidence that there is substantial racial discrimination in law enforcement; there are only racial disparities.

A racist policy would be one that *pretends* to give equal opportunity while subtly stacking the deck for or against one or more groups.

Well, we don't have any such policies, so that's a hypothetical point.

But I can say that you clearly show a wide streak of what you so readily want to smear me with.

There are two senses of racism, yours and mine.

Yours is the modern one of Democrats and progressives, which roughly amounts to: "doesn't agree with the favorable treatment we want to give to African Americans in order to make up for past mistreatment". To you, race-blind government is racist.

Mine is the simple and logical one, namely: discriminates in government policies based on race. To me, any discrimination based on race is racism, for the simple reason that "race" just isn't a valid concept. There is no such thing as a "Caucasian" or an "African American"; those are arbitrary categories people sort themselves into for various cultural reasons.

Now, the second error people like you make is that you think that people like me take our position out of greed; you think that we don't want to give special treatment to African Americans because it would mean we need to make sacrifices or give up privileges. But the actual reason is that the supposedly favorable treatment you want to give to blacks is actually hurting them, and this is nothing new. The racism of Democrats and progressives has been justified for more than a century by helping African Americans (and they have genuinely believed that that's what they were doing, just like you are), and it has always hurt them.

In fact, the attitude can be traced back to colonialism, in which the British, French, and Spanish also justified colonialism and brutal oppression by saying that they were actually helping the lesser races.

I'm sorry you keep viewing our exchange as a trading of insults. It's not. I'm simply telling you to reflect on what you are saying.

about a week ago
top

Displaced IT Workers Being Silenced

silfen Re:Maybe it's time for wage tariffs? (398 comments)

For a long time there have been tariffs to protect the importation of cheap goods (lumber, steel, etc.) from foreign countries into the USA. This system allows US companies to compete fairly against goods from other countries where wages and regulations give them an unfair advantage.

We have been getting rid of tariffs on goods because they are little more than corporate welfare and because they hurt Americans, in particular low income Americans.

The only shortage is the number of US IT workers that are willing to work for sub par wages.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't change anything. If the IT industry can't find US workers to do these jobs at the wages they want to pay, they either move the jobs overseas or get out of that business entirely because they can't compete with overseas businesses. What "wage tariffs" don't accomplish is getting more US IT workers more and higher paying jobs.

The only way US workers get higher paying jobs (and that also means better benefits and better security) than overseas workers is by actually being better. If an overseas worker can immigrate and replace you, you simply aren't worth more than that overseas worker. Having a US passport doesn't entitle you to a wage premium, much as you may feel you are entitled to it.

about two weeks ago
top

Displaced IT Workers Being Silenced

silfen really? (398 comments)

How does voluntarily taking a severance package amount to "being silenced"? Don't like the non-disparagement clause? Don't take the money.

about two weeks ago
top

Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

silfen Re:When 9 votes are required to send it ... (1128 comments)

And the "Revolutionary" War could have accomplished that in America if only all the rebellious colonists had been able to bridge the moral & logical contradiction of casting of their own chains while keeping the yoke firmly on the necks of the black Africans that their British masters forced into permanent hereditary slavery.

The revolutionaries were well aware of the injustice of slavery. But they were also well aware that the revolution wouldn't have been successful if they had pushed for that as part of the revolution itself. I suggest you read up on the French and German revolutions to see what happened with revolutions that bit off more than they could chew, and the bloodshed that resulted.

African-Americans continued to be a social underclass long after the end of the Civil War and the vast majority of white Americans were either willing participants in racial discrimination or complicit.

You're just bullshitting without facts or even a clear idea of what you are saying.

Only if equal protection means equal ENFORCEMENT; getting to that point for all social classes & minorities has been a long fight, not yet over.

I have no idea what "equal ENFORCEMENT" is even supposed to mean. The distinction in US politics is equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. You advocate equality of outcome, which, although you seem incapable of grasping this, is a racist policy.

That is equally true of Republicans and conservatives - you just have to listen closely when they speak.

Well, yes, you accuse anybody of racism who doesn't subscribe to your twisted racial ideologies. That is another common thread throughout the history of progressivism and fascism. I suppose an attack and accusation is the best defense, isn't it?

In different words, I frankly don't care anymore whether people like you call me a racist, a misogynist, or a homophobe. You have misused and tainted those terms to the point that they have become meaningless.

about two weeks ago

Submissions

silfen hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

silfen has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?