Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Disengenous (Score 1) 306

Don't forget don't read books doesn't equate with not reading. My phone has a bunch of public domain books and I still have hundreds of paper backs and text books that I just can't seem to part with but I am just not buying any more books. The whole idea of books being shipped about the place, stored in warehouses and held on retail shelves seems wrong in today's age. Localised production seems to still have a place, you enter a shop front and they print and bind the book for you while you wait or order it online with local delivery. I don't stop to read books in the dead tree variety more because I don't have the time with other activities consuming all mine spare time and none left to lose myself in a paper back and when it comes to manuals et al I prefer to multi-task access them online.

Comment Re:Bottom line (Score 1) 44

A pass for, or to do, what exactly?

Um, to. . .occupy the. . .(wait for it). . .Resolute Desk.

You try so desperately to connect those two unrelated concepts; apparently under the belief that you can force them into association by repetition alone. I would point out to you that there were actually people from the original occupy (wall st.) movement who actually wanted to run against President Lawnchair but I don't expect that would slow you down any.

He hasn't exactly done much since. Not that he did a whole lot before...

So, exactly how "[absurd" was my "analogy]", please?

The absurd analogy in your silly hashtag is absurd because you are trying to - by repetition and hand-waving alone - convince people that the two concepts are related. Now, if you wanted instead to make an argument that neither have been effective, you would have a case. However you have given plenty of reason to expect that is not the case you are trying to make.

So then are you done calling for impeachment?

As I was explaining to my dad during the daily call on the way home, the way politics works, you don't bring anything to a vote unless you know what the outcome will be.

Really? The GOP has brought to a vote in the house - by one mechanism or another - over 30 different attempts to kill off (in whole or in part) the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010. If they knew that those weren't going to pass, then did they bring them to a vote intentionally to slow down what little congress was doing?

While, in a absolute sense, I don't doubt that orders of magnitude more information exists than would be needful to demonstrate "high crimes and misdemeanors"

I would be genuinely interested in knowing why you are so sure of this. I don't expect that you will share that information, but I would love to know it. So far you have presented a laundry list of conspiracy theories about the POTUS but not once have you presented anything resembling a fact that would support your ambitions to throw him out.

unless the public is convinced that the president should be removed from power

So, then, ~35% of the public - or 80%+ of your own party - supporting impeachment are sufficient in your mind to venture down this road? Not many people would ordinarily consider such a group to be an accurate assessment of "the public".

somehow expect the spineless GOP to locate some vertebrae

If the GOP are invertebrates, then the democrats are - at most structurally - pond scum. They haven't stood for much of anything as a party in over a decade.

I'm not sure, at that point, what difference impeachment is supposed to make

... but yet you still support going for it. You still insist that there is a case for it.

other than giving your girl the ultimate Race Card play.

... and there's the racist card being played again. It did take you a while to go for it, but not long enough for congratulations to be in order.

I couldn't get the article to load

Google cache?

At least I clicked on it. Not my fault it didn't work. What I did was still more than you have done to attempt to fill in your cavernous gaps of knowledge.

Submission + - NASA Confirms New EM Thruster Violates Laws Of Conservation

Crudely_Indecent writes: Mentioned here in a previous story ( http://slashdot.org/story/06/0... ), the EM thruster that generates thrust using no fuel, only electricity has been tested by NASA and confirmed to work!

Is this the Star Trek future tech we've been waiting for?

The NASA report titled "Anomalous Thrust Production from an RF Test Device Measured on a Low-Thrust Torsion Pendulum" was published 3 days ago and can be found here: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.js... From the abstract:

This paper describes the eight-day August 2013 test campaign designed to investigate and demonstrate viability of using classical magnetoplasmadynamics to obtain a propulsive momentum transfer via the quantum vacuum virtual plasma.

Comment Re:Shitvertisement (Score 1) 53

You idiots also said that about TV's, music devices, homes etc...

No, they didn't.

But I'll say it right now: My house does not need to be on the Internet. My shoes do not need to be on the Internet.

Not this Internet, at least. Because every one of those connected "things" is going to require connecting to a web page to manage, and that web page is going to require you to create a profile, that is connected to your personal information. The Internet of Things is not designed for your benefit. Right now, in 2014, do you really need to be told that? Have you not noticed anything happening around you?

For a group of people who are supposed to be tech-savvy, a lot of techies really don't seem to get what the Internet is about. There is some fantasy from the 1980's that still seems to hang on in the minds of people. Maybe a fairy tale that is told from generation to generation. But it has nothing to do with the truth. That Internet we dreamed about decades ago never happened.

Comment Re:Shitvertisement (Score 1) 53

I don't understand why this has been modded as a troll. He took the words right out of my mouth.

My "things" don't need to be on the internet. I like the Internet being in a neat compartment where I can go when I want it. I don't want it following me around.

Seriously, what the fuck is so attractive, I mean, given that the Internet has become pretty much a combination of a low-rent shopping mall and the equivalent of having your boss, your government and your phone company looking up your ass every minute of the day, about an internet of things? Have people really gotten that bored with life? Can you really not live one single minute without the illusion that your measly existence matters one bit to the universe?

Can anyone be so dense as to not be able to see what this "internet of things" is really all about? And here's a hint: It's not about making your life better. For fuck's sake.

Comment Re:Disengenous (Score 1) 306

Have you actually shopped at Amazon? Amazon offers the first couple chapters of all their books for free.

Cool. I hadn't noticed that feature.

So there really is no advantage to browsing in physical stores.

Comment Re:No matter how common you think it is... (Score 4, Funny) 209

It's a simple matter of getting all hands on deck and thinking outside of the box, so they can add value to a 6 sigma paradigm, architecting it to meet mission critical business needs while driving a best of breed reprocessing, in order to improve the EBITDA and get the boss a big bonus. If we can globally revolutionize synergistic e-commerce while doing so, win-win!

Slashdot Top Deals

What hath Bob wrought?

Working...