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


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Hyperbole stew (Score 1) 508

One of the strongest arguments against adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution was that by calling out specific rights people would be justified in treating those rights differently than ones that didn't make the list. The whole point of the 9th amendment was to try to alleviate those concerns.

Of course, when government power was being greatly expanded to allow New Deal legislation, the Supreme Court decided that law that violated different rights deserved different levels of scrutiny - and guess which rights ended up triggering 'strict scrutiny' in Footnote Four?

So yes, it's a perfectly valid interpretation of legal history to say that the net effect of the Bill of Rights was to reduced the overall scope of rights held by Americans.

Comment Re: Typical (Score 1) 1368

..I would take it in the chin. It's true. I don't take it as alienating.

I don't really care about your state-v-state arguments - I just get annoyed when people on my favorite sci/tech website spout clearly false statements about my industry, whether it's getting basic facts blatantly wrong or anti-GMO conspiracy-theory style nonsense.

But I couldn't pass up the similarity to the main story - left-leaning CA wants to leave because of a single election where the left spent the entire time trying to insult people into voting their way, and even Obama-supporting gay-marrying Iowa went red. And two posts after someone states some facts about agriculture the whole region produces nothing but garbage unfit for human consumption that civilized nations won't buy. *shrug*

Comment Re: Typical (Score 1) 1368

Same here. Won't eat anything GMO .. Unfit for human consumption. Pretty much everything produced from the midwest area parent is touting. Additionally, most civilized nations around the world won't buy any of the Monsanto GMO garbage either, produced from that same region as well.

I can understand believing the European protectionist/anti-capitalist propaganda, and it's fine if you want to make choices for yourself based on it. But when your response to someone pointing out facts about agriculture is rant about how much of the country "produces garbage" - that's how you alienate the people who live there and lose elections because of it.

Anyway, do you agree that California doesn't "grow 2/3 of the US crops"? 'Cause that was my entire point.

Comment Re: Typical (Score 5, Informative) 1368

You're aware that California grows 2/3 of the US crops?

You must mean 2/3 of the crop species. California only produces about 11% of the food grown in the US (by value) and has more than 12% of the population. Iowa has less than a tenth as many people and produces more than 2/3 the crop value that Cali does. 'You', or rather the state you're in, produce a variety of fruits and veggies. But the grain and grain-fed meat that make up the bulk of what people in the US eat comes from the Midwest.

Comment Re:Cue The Usual Suspects (Score 1) 164

And caloric appears to account for the flow of heat--and a depletion of phlogiston is why burning wood results in ashes--and lumnifierous ether is the medium of for the propagation of light waves in interstellar space.

So dark matter is the best theory known given the data we have, and if it does get disproved the process of doing so will point us toward better theories? Sounds like science at its best.

But somehow I think you're just looking for a future 'told you so'.

Comment Re:Science Fiction is busy destroying itself (Score 1) 252

Sci-fi and a lot of "geekdom" in general does have a misogyny problem.

No, "geekdom" has social-skills issues. A poorly done romantic overture isn't misogyny, it's just another clumsy social interaction. And it doesn't help the kind of people who take things literally that we have so many rules that are taboo to talk about - from "male sexuality is always seen as being dangerous, even if she has more control over the situation than you do" to "people will judge your behavior towards women more harshly".

If your book is about space marines and 90% of the characters are male, that's not misogyny... it's life. If the book were then to only refer to and treat women as sex objects, submissive servants, etc. That's misogyny.

No, that's also (in some cases) life. Or are we banning "The Stepford Wives" now? Or is it just positive or neutral portrayals of those subjects?

Too many people confuse omission for exclusion and both for derision and/or subjugation.

Exactly. Just like some people confuse portrayals or exploration of subjugation with endorsement of it. Or endorsement of ideas that they don't like with evil.

Regardless, you can write good sci-fi in the constraints laid out by the SJW.

You can write good sci-fi without aliens, too. The question should be "Why should fictional entertainment, especially a genre often used as an exploration of ideas, be forced to exclude ideas that one particular group has political issues with?". What's next, communism sucks therefore Star Trek shouldn't be allowed to show a money-free future?

Slashdot Top Deals

Writing software is more fun than working.