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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Why have ademocracy at all? (Score 1) 633

As to original notations, this is merely a confession of autism.

Absent context, this statement is ambiguous. In the context of the entirety of my previous post, it's ambiguous. This makes for poor communication. If you're alleging that some statement of mine constitutes a confession of autism, then you may be "interpreting" my words to mean something which they do not explicitly state. This also makes for poor communication.

As to questioning statements, this is mindless nitpicking or autism.

Perhaps it's your writing style, but I really have no idea what you're trying to communicate here. Are you saying that questioning the statements of another necessarily constitutes "mindless nitpicking or autism"?

This does nothing to aid in rational and productive discourse.

Are you saying that questioning the statements of another does nothing to aid in rational and productive discourse? That seems outright false and antithetical to the very idea of scientific inquiry, which in my opinion is highly rational and productive. We can agree to disagree on this point.

You concede my meaning but want every little line to compile.

I don't concede your meaning (which should be evident from my words "I was questioning your original claim"). You said something which was factually false. Instead of questioning your intellect, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked if you simply misspoke and inadvertently made a claim which you did not intend to make. If you're saying that the claim you made (that people are being blacklisted "for even daring to support anything but the democrats") is equivalent to the claim that you now seem to be agreeing with (that people are not being blacklisted for supporting non-Trump candidates), then I've already explained very clearly why you're wrong. You don't seem to disagree on that point, but you do seem to disagree that your original point was factually incorrect. You're making an argument that is internally contradictory.

You're not a computer and neither am I. We are both much more complex and sophisticated creatures that are able to interpret meaning. To limit myself to what a computer would do would be to surrender that for nothing. Deal in meaning and be human.

You seem to be inviting me to interpret your words as I see fit. So, granted full artistic license, I interpret your words to be allegorical in nature and to mean nothing more than that you... *spins wheel of random interpretation* are imprecise with your words and that your words should not be taken literally as they're likely false. Is that what you meant?

As to write in candidates, then the notion is not especially credible. That's three for three.

So, I see you're still making unsubstantiated claims and accepting them as truth. See also: begging the question, circular reasoning.

As to coming down as hard on X as Y... Do it then. Judge both by the same standard. Calculate. Run the numbers. Process the program. Find your value for X. Do it. You want to play the "I'm autistic so I'm more rational" game... fine. Let us see precisely how rational you are... because I've played this game with other people that attempted the same ploy, and generally the logical contradictions happened almost immediately. Let us see if you're different. Execute.

Perhaps it's your writing style again, but I have no idea what you're saying here. Who's coming down as hard on X as Y? Who are X and Y? Are X and Y not supposed to be come down equally hard on? I suppose some context might help here also, but after re-reading my previous post, I honestly have no idea what this could be in reference to.

As to autism as a pejorative, you were demonstrating an inability to grasp concepts in a larger context or interrelate phrases and topics with each other. This is a symptom of autism. I was hoping that by using the term you'd understand that your line of rhetorical argumentation was coming off as literally mentally disabled. Which to be very clear... that is how you were sounding. You take issue and then concede my points. If you weren't autistic or weren't behaving in that matter you'd have processed the context or the interrelation prior to taking issue and thus never found fault in the first place. Failing to do that demonstrated a dysfunction. Work on it.

That's cool, but, while it's entirely possible that I'm autistic and unable to grasp concepts in a larger context, it's also possible that you're just really bad at written communication. I submit as supporting evidence this past exchange, where you make ambiguous statements without any explicit context. In the future, you may want to make use of slashdot's quote feature, which allows you to actually provide context for your statements. I've been making use of it myself, and I note that you haven't had any issues understanding what it is that I'm trying to communicate (though, admittedly, you haven't actually been acknowledging any of the points that I've made, as far as I can tell).

Also, while I appreciate your medical opinion, you must recognize that my alleged autism doesn't excuse the fact that many of your statements lack any supporting basis, which was my original complaint. Since we're now discussing autism almost as much as we're discussing the value (or lack thereof) in voting for third parties, it seems that this hasn't furthered the very rational or productive discussion which you claim to be fond of. Perhaps in the future, we could just keep things on-topic instead of having a sidebar about neurodevelopmental disorders.

Comment Re:The story behind the story (Score 1) 412

WTF? You Clinton-haters usually assume that the Clintons do all sorts of evil and nefarious things without getting caught.

Broad generalization, but okay.

Now you say Hillary can't put together a decent smear campaign?

Al Capone was widely assumed to do all sorts of evil and nefarious things without getting caught. Now people say he couldn't even do his taxes right?

If the Clintons can leave a trail of bodies behind them without being accused or indicted, they can definitely do a good smear campaign.

If they haven't been accused, then why do you say they can leave a trail of bodies? Nobody's accusing them of that, per your own words. Furthermore, it's not clear that they failed to do a good smear campaign. There are many headlines about Assange being a pedophile, but not too many about how this accusation was brought forth by a non-existent entity. If that doesn't constitute a good smear campaign, then what does?

Comment Re:Why have ademocracy at all? (Score 1) 633

If you're too autistic to grasp the difference "will not happen because of standing conditions that make it impossible" and saying "won't happen"... then any further argument on that point is a waste of my time.

I'll note that your original comment was that they "can't win", not "won't win". The former is factually false, while the latter is a reasonable opinion. Let's not move the goalposts.

If you're too autistic to grasp the tactical and strategic difference between someone voting for a real threat to their power and someone that is voting for someone that is not a threat to their power... then any further argument on that point is a waste of my time. What is more, you're not contradicting that people are being blacklisted based on who they support in an election. Would you be so sanguine if this were applied against Hillary supporters?

I do grasp the tactical and strategic difference between someone voting for a real threat to their power and someone that is voting for someone that is not a threat to their power. That's exactly why I was questioning your original claim that people are being blacklisted for supporting "anything but the democrats". To the best of my knowledge, nobody is being blacklisted for supporting non-Trump candidates, specifically because [in my opinion] non-Trump candidates are not perceived to be a real threat to Clinton. Indeed, I'm not contradicting that people are being blacklisted based on who they support in an election, because that wasn't your original claim. I'm contradicting that people are being blacklisted for supporting "anything but the democrats", when it is clear that supporters of non-Trump candidates are not being blacklisted. Furthermore, I would be very happy to see Hillary supporters blacklisted right alongside Trump supporters (as I clarified in my last post), but I'm not sure how this is relevant to the thread.

How many times in the history of the United States of America has a national write in Candidate won the national election? If you have a point then this happens with some frequency. If it doesn't then you're throwing out more irrelevancies. I can't tell if you're going out of your way to be obtuse to argue points in bad faith or if you're so autistic that you honestly think these are valid points.

I don't believe a write-in candidate has ever won a national election in the US, but two US Congressmen have. However, it's not clear how that's relevant, there is no requirement for previous write-in candidates having won for a future write-in candidate to win (and if there were such a requirement, it could never be met, even in theory). While I acknowledge that the likelihood of a write-in candidate winning is negligible, that's not sufficient grounds to claim that it is not possible. Furthermore, the viability (or lack thereof) of write-in candidates has no bearing on the fact that there are at least three choices for President actually on the ballot in all 50 states, which contradicts your claim of only "two choices". I understand that the other candidates are exceedingly unlikely to win the election, but voters may choose them just as easily as they can choose a Democrat or Republican, and for this reason your claim is factually false.

Because you're either being intentionally obtuse or unintentionally autistic, I suspect you won't acknowledge that were the shoe on the other foot the existing political and social orthodoxy would not be comfortable with Hillary supporters being given the same treatment.

I have no problems acknowledging that the existing political and social orthodoxy (where Democrats increasingly outnumber Republicans) would probably not be comfortable with Clinton supporters being given the same treatment. This is consistent with my view that people are generally being self-interested duplicitous hypocrites when they're allowed to be. What I don't understand is why you seem to think I'm less critical of Clinton supporters than I am of Trump supporters.

P.S. Kudos for repeatedly using autistic as a pejorative. Also recommended: retarded, gay.

Comment Re:Why have ademocracy at all? (Score 1) 633

Gary can't win.
Jill Stein can't win.

That's objectively false. They're both on the ballot in sufficiently many states to be able to win. It's overwhelmingly unlikely that they'll win, but strictly speaking, they can win. I'll forgive this on the basis of likely hyperbole and not a statement intended to be literally true.

There's no reason to blacklist people that throw their votes away.

Presumably "people that throw their votes away" are people who vote for someone other than the two major party candidates? If that's the case, then you seem to be agreeing with me that your original claim that people are being blacklisted for supporting "anything but the democrats" is false, since you seem to be claiming that people who support Stein or Johnson (who are not Democrats) are not blacklisted.

Politics is not an ice cream parlor where you get to choose your favorite flavor. You have two choices typically and neither one is what you'd choose if you had control over everything.

This is a flawed analogy on multiple counts. Since 43 states (including all of the populous ones) allow write-in candidates, most voters can indeed choose anyone they want, literally. Furthermore, the remaining 7 states offer at least three choices this year, so it is

Look, you feel entitled to blacklist people possibly for voting for one thing or another. Fine. You would naturally have no problem with someone blacklisting anyone that supported Hillary then?

I feel entitled to blacklist people (from what?) for any reason I see fit. I would similarly have no problem with blacklisting anyone that supported Hillary. That is correct. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, though.


Comment Re:No, We're Not Addicted to Our Jobs (Score 2) 403

Wait a minute here. You start your rant basically saying "there's not enough regulation; we need protection!", and end it with "They're assaulting us with onerous regulation!"

What on earth do you actually want?

To have his cake and eat it too. Meet the electorate, and understand why we're fucked.

Comment Re:Why have ademocracy at all? (Score 2) 633

Seriously, this blacklisting of people for even daring to support anything but the democrats has grown grotesque.

Dismiss this as a nitpick, but that's not accurate. It's blacklisting of people for even daring to support Trump, unless you have evidence that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein supporters are also being blacklisted.

Also, I disagree with you singling out the Democrats for actions that the Republicans are also guilty of, but that's an entirely different discussion. Full disclosure: I rarely vote for candidates put forth by either of the two major parties, and this year will be no exception.

Comment Re:This! (Score 1) 396

The latest hysteria about Trump for example: Trump said very clearly that he would ask his Attorney General to assign a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Clinton's. Sounds reasonable to most of us considering the amount of corruption that surrounds them (worded intentionally, so read what I wrote instead of what you want to see). Media report: Trump is going to randomly jail people. He's a dictator, he's a this, he's a that.

So, while I agree with much of what you wrote, I'd like to caveat that during this same debate, Trump also said to Clinton "because you'd be in jail" (in response to her "awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country"). His lack of qualifiers ("probably" would've helped, for example) implies that he is presupposing the outcome of the investigation he'd commission and could be cited as evidence of his desire for the investigation to reach a predetermined outcome.

Full disclosure: definitely voting, but not for either of these two fucks.

Comment Re:Its Russia's Fault Translation (Score 1) 689

I never said Keystone ends in Europe. I implied that if Canadian oil becomes available to the US, then it puts more pressure on Russian oil prices and forces them to sell it at fair market value to Eastern Europe.

First, Canadian oil is already available to the US. The first two phases of the Keystone pipeline system are already online and fully operational. The third phase is partly online, and expected to be fully operational in 2017. The fourth phase, Keystone XL, is what was nixed.

Second, the Keystone pipeline system is far from the only oil pipeline from Canada to the US. Here's a map that I found linked from here, easily found by a cursory web search. So, again, Canadian oil is already available to the US.

Third, Canadian oil has been available to the US for longer than we've had pipelines, as oil is commonly distributed via tankers. I'll stop beating that horse now, as I'm assuming you misspoke on that point and are aware that over 1/3 of US oil imports already come from Canada.

Fouth, you seem to be making a number of mutually-exclusive assumptions about oil. Specifically, you seem to be assuming that the cost of transporting Canadian oil to Europe by tanker is less than the cost of transporting Russian oil to Europe by pipeline. You seem to [correctly] imply that transport by pipeline is cheaper than transport by tanker in the context of Canada/US oil transport, but for some reason [falsely] imply the opposite in the context of supplying Europe with oil. If pipeline transport is cheaper than tanker transport, then tanker-transported Canadian oil wouldn't be able to undercut pipeline-transported Russian oil on price. If pipeline transport is not cheaper than tanker transport, then Keystone XL wouldn't lower the cost of Canadian oil.

Finally, you're overlooking many other aspects of this situation. Say, the fact that not all oils are born equal (though that's not really that much of an issue in this comparison, as both Canadian and Russian crude oils are shit). Maybe the fact that geographic location of refining and storage capacity dictate in large part the route that petrochemicals travel between production and consumption. Et cetera.

In a nutshell, I find your view overly simplistic and likely inaccurate. While it's true that increased production in North America (and indeed, the current bottleneck is in the distribution network, not on the production side) would put some negative price pressure on oil markets, there's no reason to suspect that this would be sufficient to bankrupt Gazprom.

Also, I'd like to point out that the "stupid oil pipeline" in Syria isn't actually an oil pipeline. It's a natural gas pipeline. And Russia extorts Eastern Europe via turning the screws on gas prices during winter. We should've been talking about gas, not oil. An oversight like that really makes me wonder why I spend so much time on my response, but feel free to reply if you're interested in how natural gas distribution works.

Comment Re:Its Russia's Fault Translation (Score 1) 689

The funny thing here is that if they just approved and opened up the Keystone Pipeline, they'd have achieved the same goal of bankrupting GAZPROM, w/o going to war in the Mid East.

Keystone XL was never intended to terminate in Europe.

But I'll definitely take whatever it is that you're smoking.

Comment Re: Great (Score 4, Insightful) 689

Because saying "fuck you" by voting for the Libertarian or Green candidates is like saying "fuck you" while you're standing out in the middle of the woods with nobody listening. The vote is lost.

That's a gross oversimplification of the way presidential elections work in the USA.

If you live in a swing state, what you said is true. However, most American voters don't live in swing states, and indeed, they have no say in the contest between Democrats and Republicans. Their vote is effectively lost regardless of how they vote.

Unless they vote for a third party. You see, though the D/R contest is already settled in most states, there is another one in which these voters can still have a say: the fight for more money.

For your convenience:

Minor party candidates and new party candidates may become eligible for partial public funding of their general election campaigns. (A minor party candidate is the nominee of a party whose candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the total popular vote in the preceding Presidential election. A new party candidate is the nominee of a party that is neither a major party nor a minor party.) The amount of public funding to which a minor party candidate is entitled is based on the ratio of the party's popular vote in the preceding Presidential election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in that election. A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if he/she receives 5 percent or more of the vote. The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.


So, in many ways, you're advocating for people to dutifully throw their votes away on statistically-impossible outcomes instead of actually casting them in a way that is considerably more likely to actually have a practical outcome. For a Californian, like it or not, their state is going for Clinton (99.9% probability as per Nate Silver's projections as of this writing), regardless of who they vote for. If their vote was somehow going to be the deciding factor in California, then virtually all other states would already be in the bag for Trump, and the contest would have already been decided anyway. The only way their vote can have any practical impact is by helping to push a third party past the 5% threshold, enabling the collection of partial public funding for the next election.

Emphasis added for people with short attention spans.

Comment Re:Two types of laws (Score 1) 459

The traffic code in most cases specifically excludes intent from consideration, but that's an anomalous area in the law. Throughout very nearly all of criminal law, intent is crucial to determining guilt. So while you're correct that "Officer, I didn't see the sign" won't do you any good, your argument is a red herring that demonstrates significant lack of knowledge of criminal law.

So, as it turns out, 18 U.S.C. 793(f) is also an anomalous area in the law, because it doesn't require intent. Care to contribute some more of that knowledge of criminal law?

Slashdot Top Deals

Base 8 is just like base 10, if you are missing two fingers. -- Tom Lehrer