Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re: Yup (Score 1) 465

Your obsession with what colour (slavery is wrong whatever colour), and baseless insults on education and "worldview" appear irrelevant, and disappointing IMHO.

My original post was a response to this AC.

Why worship a document so clearly penned by hypocrisy - several owned slaves.

...Talking about the Founding Fathers.

"Irrelevant" and "baseless"?

I think not.

Of course you are free to disagree. That's one of the freedoms we enjoy because of those so-called "hypocrites" the AC referred to. And it was not actually an insult, unless you personally consider pointing out factual errors leading to an erroneous and/or skewed worldview an insult. I thought I was actually being informative, and from my original post's score it seems the moderators agree.


Comment Re: Yup (Score 1) 465

Lifetime indenture = slavery.

But that's not quite the same as recognizing someone as actually a slave, and not an extended contract of indenture. If I remember correctly, John Punch ran away before his limited term of indenture was finished and broke his contract, and that was the punishment meted out by the court. John Casor was not made a slave as punishment, he did not break his contract. Anthony Johnson simply did not want to recognize the end of his contract for commercial/monetary reasons.


Comment Re: Yup (Score 1, Insightful) 465

I must admit mis-remembering concerning John Casor being white. I confused the Irish indentured servants with John Casor for some reason. I will always admit it when I'm mistaken.

However, Anthony Johnson *was* a black man and *was* the first government-sanctioned US slave owner, and the rest of my original post I still stand by.

I know many people here intensely dislike Glenn Beck, heck I don't agree with him on many topics, but he did a very good historical piece on US slavery. I believe it's worth seeing.


Comment Re: Yup (Score 3, Informative) 465

Why worship a document so clearly penned by hypocrisy - several owned slaves.

Let me educate you on a little US history.

1. Slavery was instituted in the US many decades before any of the 'Founding Fathers' were born.

2. The first slave owner, and the person who argued it through the courts to make it legal, was a black man named Anthony Johnson.

3. Anthony Johnson's first slave, John Casor, and most of the others he ended up owning, were white.

4. Thomas Jefferson, the most-oft cited slave-owning Founder, never bought nor sold a single slave. He inherited them from his in-laws and kept them together so as not to break up their families and treated them as well as he could under the existing laws passed long before he was born.

5. Jefferson could not free his slaves as under the laws of the time, he would have been hanged.

6. Nearly all the Founders despised slavery. The only reason it was allowed to continue was the southern Democrat States would not join the US revolution on the American side if it was outlawed. They enacted the 3/5ths Compromise so as to lessen Southern slaveholders' voting power, so that slavery *could* be banned down the road while still achieving the immediate goal of forming all 13 colonies into a single unified nation to defeat the British and achieve independence.

Sorry about your broken worldview. Fortunately, an education in history can get you a new and better worldview if one is willing and able to change their thinking based on facts.


Comment Re:Great. Why not six years ago? (Score 1) 187

This problem ain't just on Trump and Republicans.

Now it is. They control all three branches of government and could stop warrantless searches tomorrow if they so decided.

But that's simply a deflection and avoiding the subject. Why didn't the Democrats take action when *they* had all 3 branches of government with Harry Reid's 'nuclear option' in play that made the minority (R)'s unable to block/obstruct as with the ACA/Obamacare?

Could it be that the problem is one of a too-powerful government altogether, and not simply a problem with one political party?

Take off the partisan blinders. *Both* sides are corrupt and agree on 90%-plus, especially on abridging civil rights.


Comment Re:whose fraud??? (Score 4, Insightful) 188

Although I doubt the $500m figure on a competitive bid or such pricing basis, at least they are not quoting billions and trillions....

The figures given are meaningless as there's no way to actually know, they're chosen for propaganda value.

They're going after Kim & co. because they have fewer millions to fight back with and fewer US politicians paid off than YouTube/Google who host far more copyright-violating content than Megaupload. As we've seen demonstrated over and over again, if you've got the money and connections you can get away with anything in the US, the Rule of Law means squat.


Comment Re:Just another mindless attack (Score 1) 505

What they forget is no one cares what phone Trump uses to tweet from. As long as he has a second phone to keep the classified stuff secure, who cares if he also keeps his personal phone?

FWIW there are document preservation laws he needs to comply with, too.

I know I'll get modded down for being honest here, but I don't care.

"FWIW" is no worth at all. The document preservation laws you mention concern official papers, communications, etc. They do not cover non-government-related, non-classified/non-TS public statements and commentary published openly on a public website. Trump could have 100 phones, tablets, etc etc and post all over the 'net and not be breaking any laws or security protocols.

You lot on the left suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome are just being pathetically disingenuous and disgustingly dishonest and hypocritical with your Alinsky-ite 'accuse your enemies of exactly what you, yourself do' tactics. It's no wonder people are abandoning the left/Democrats in droves. They can't stand the smell any longer.

But hey, that's what got Trump elected! Keep it up! You'll gift the conservatives control of all 3 federal branches and the entire federal government along with the public's backing to repeal/abolish every leftist initiative instituted in the last 60 years! Good times!

For those who claim to be anti-gun, you sure love your high-caliber, fully-automatic footguns, LOL!


Comment Re:How to get 8 years of Trump (Score 0) 920

I think we should get Ivanka for 2024

Nice, but I think Melania would be even better, with 'the Donald' as 'first husband', LOL! There would be blood shooting from eyes on the left!

The left might even vote for her since she has a woman card.

Not a chance...the left only honors the 'woman card' when it's being used against opponents. Conservative women are not really 'women' to the left and it's fine to treat them in ways they'd scream about if it were one of their women instead. They don't even consider any possibility they might be wrong, it's a totally foreign concept for them. They view anyone who has different opinions as stupid and/or evil, and so that just reinforces the notion that opposing ideas aren't even worth listening to, and they reason since they are facing evil and/or the irredeemably stupid, the ends justify the means.

It's a dangerous and contagious ideological psychosis that spreads among those ignorant of history and/or indoctrinated by the authority figures in their upbringing and education which has killed uncountable millions around the world.


Comment Re:How to get 8 years of Trump (Score 0) 920

Do this. Do this more often. Exactly this.

Followed by 8 years of Cruz, LOL!

The way the left is melting down is hilarious!

Conservatives don't have to say a thing, just point at the left. Their own actions, behaviors, racism, bigotry, and violence speak all that anybody needs to dismiss them as a serious political force. All Cruz's 2024 campaign ads have to be are simply replays of all the hysterical leftists ranting, lying, and rioting. They won't even need narration! He'll win in a historically 'yuuuge' landslide!


Comment Re:Never Fails (Score 1) 131

To answer a simple question with another, would you be okay with alcoholics who have lost their license half a dozen times offering taxi rides on Craigslist, when they're driving a car with no license and no insurance? Would you expect minimum professional standards from a taxi service, or expect Joe Blow Consumer to do a full background check on Billy Bob for DUI's before getting into his car for a ride to the airport, least it be Joe's own damn fault for the ensuing car accident?

So what stops anybody from doing that now? I've seen ads on the local CL by individuals for ride-sharing in the local area before Uber/Lyft came along. With a driver-rating system that passengers can use to see what others thought of prospective drivers integrated into the OSS free app this can be mitigated greatly. Besides, Uber/Lyft are/were setting standards for drivers, but abolish them and you'll have just what you describe.

As others have pointed out, the current taxi system (at least everywhere in the US I've been, and I'm fairly well-traveled) is fundamentally broken and horribad in many ways and on many levels. Are you saying we're simply doomed, DOOOOMED! to suffer the existing broken, too-expensive, and corrupt system?

The current taxi system in many, many places, including where I live currently, is a 'private contractor' system as well. Drivers are not employees of the taxi companies, they simply temporarily lease a cab. The taxi companies don't do any screening other than checking for a valid license and maybe a basic check for outstanding warrants. Why is it that taxi drivers being 'contractors' is fine, but Uber/Lyft drivers are 'employees', other than being interpreted as such as a weapon to be used against ride-sharing?

AFAICT, Uber/Lyft actually screen drivers more stringently than the taxi companies do. Uber/Lyft vehicles are far and away better quality than typical taxis. Not everything needs to be controlled by the government, as often that control actually ends up degrading safety, utility, and efficiency.


Comment Re:Never Fails (Score 1) 131

Uber's business model is to pretend ride-sharing and car-for-hire are the same thing until some government or private entity challenges that obvious falsehood in court.

What about an open-source free app that simply connects drivers with riders in a distributed, non-centralized way, where any fees are negotiated exclusively and privately between each driver and rider, where no money goes back to the app writers and where they exercise zero control/restrictions over drivers? When it's simply individuals with no business like an Uber or Lyft involved at all? Would that be OK in your opinion?


Comment Re:If the *.AA think it's bad (Score 1) 134

...exclusivity of control was the property of the copyright holder.

You seem to be conflating two different definitions of "property". In the first definition, "property" is a physical thing, as in land or a car. The second, and the definition which applies to "exclusivity of control", is that of a characteristic, as in occupying space is a "property" of mass.

"Exclusivity of control" is a "property" of copyright law, as in an attribute, it is not physical property as in a car or land is "property".

These are important distinctions to grasp in order to have a meaningful discussion about copyright.


Comment Re:Incorrect! (Score 1) 382

Actually you have it backward, modern civilization is modern because Christianity went through reformations.


I personally tend to think they went hand-in-hand in a sort of 'chicken -or-egg' sense, in that neither one was really possible without the other. I also believe that if Islam experienced a similar reformation the ME would experience a 'Renaissance' period somewhat similar to Europe's and become a far more peaceful, advanced, and wealthy region.


Slashdot Top Deals

Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein