A pro-Linux bias on Slashdot is

A complete myth. At least these days.

Slashdot has several bags of crazy, all competing with one another at various times.

There's Windows fanbois, Linux fanbois, and Apple fanbois. Over the years the ratio of those has swung back and forth, these days I'd say on balance you'd be hard pressed to say there's a strong bias one way or another.

At various times it's been chic to tend more to one or another, now it seems like Slashdot has grown enough that there's at least 30 different kinds of batshit crazy at any given time, all struggling to get out.

But let's face it, the actions of the Linux people in their unwavering belief in the perfection of Linux is no less sketchy than the people whose unwavering defense of Microsoft defies logic.

I'd like to say Slashdot has a bias towards rational thought. I'd like to, but if anything I'd say Slashdot has an increasing bias towards fixed positions and screeching monkeys flinging poo.

There's always been poo flinging, but now there's less rational discourse.

Sure it was good behavior.

But it was borne entirely out of the Linux people saying "OMG, teh Samsung is teh sux0r".

I do give them a lot of credit. More than the people who apparently insisted it was the fault of Samsung in the first place.

After many complaints that Samsung SSDs corrupted data when used with Linux

There was definitely some self-interest there.

Samsung can't have people saying their SSDs corrupt data when it's not them doing it.

and anal fumigation by tobacco smoke used in that "CPR" of the 1700s are exactly the same as modern CPR

Oh, come on, you're just blowing smoke up our asses.

Honestly, what I want to know is ... who the hell was the first person to decide to try that?

I'm sure there's some "rule #34" porn out there for the adventurous. Somehow I suspect urban dictionary has a definition which includes this.

The mind reels.

On the one hand, yes, CPR traces it's history to the 1700s, even if it wasn't the entire modern version.

On the other hand I can find at least two references which acknowledge Jude as being part of the modern version of it.

But, more to the point ... thanks to all of the people throughout history who have helped us find ways to save lives.

And you can be damned sure that the use of CPR in its modern form has saved a tremendous amount of lives.

Sorry for your loss, voxelman. Few people can claim to have contributed to saving so many lives.

You don't think Oracle would allow something to be designed which didn't maximize license revenue, do you?

Why, yes, we'll sell you this CPU for $800 ... but the licensing costs for your organization running this in production in a web-facing environment will be 16 trillion dollars.

Oracle is all about maximizing license revenues.

One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison. It costs a lot of money to maintain private islands and yachts.

And besides, nobody is forcing you to buy it, hey - there are cars that cost millions, are you complaining about that too? And why would you? How does this product or its cost affect you? Isn't its ownership entirely up to you? Surely nobody would need a car like that?

And when the fuck did I say anybody was forcing me to own it or your choice to have one impacted me? I don't give an elephants arse what you buy for your own machine. I think that such stuff exists is cool, but the overwhelming majority of people will never need it.

I said "wow, you wacky people and your crazy stuff", followed by "this is what I have and is entirely suited for my needs".

I'm entirely aware there are legitimate reasons for all of this stuff. But knowing I don't need it, nonetheless I continue to be wowed by these crazy high end stuff.

Get over your fucking self, and read what I wrote.

I'm not saying there aren't reasons for this kind of stuff. I'm saying for those of us who don't need it and know we don't need it, we can get the performance we want with entirely different hardware.

Because when I rip a CD to MP3, and the same fucking CPU stays pegged until that is done, I can pretty much tell that processor affinity in the scheduler means that, yes, for all intents and purpose, while it is running that task gets a mostly dedicated CPU. Which allows everything else I'm doing to keep running smoothly.

If you truly need the performance, buy any damned thing you can afford and justify.

So in other words, like many, many things sold under the guise of being healthful,

It's pure marketing, and not necessarily true.

As a general rule, I usually treat most marketing claims as if they're either lies, or a creative interpretation of the truth.

Because they probably are.

Those would be 8 lousy AMD cores which probably cannot stand to an i5... seeing how the cheapest Intel 8 core chip is 650+$

Yes, they're AMD, no, they're not "lousy". (And, I guess technically it's 4 cores with hyperthreading, I'm not sure)

They are entirely adequate for my needs, are not called upon to run the most computationally intense stuff on the planet ... instead they provide my desktop with the ability to remain responsive while running 3 browser, 2 VMs, iTunes, the software for updating my GPS.

There will always be people who truly do need the absolute most speed achievable by technology. You are probably one of them.

But for many of us, we can achieve some pretty damned fine performance by doing this stuff with cheaper hardware. Most people for most tasks will never be truly CPU bound ... but when running multiple things concurrently, these "lousy" cores offer a really good boost for what we really need. Because it allows more apps to run concurrently on the same machine without competing for CPU directly.

For me, those 'lousy' AMD 8 cores are a big pile of awesome. Because it means when I do run a long-running task which wants some CPU time, nothing else really notices.

You wacky gamers ... a $550 video card?

That's getting close to what I paid for the CPU, motherboard, and RAM in my 8-core 16GB machine.

Of course, my video card was $40 because I don't need crazy graphics. :-P

Typically that doesn't happen after you've hovered a drone over someone's yard.

So the moment the ass with the drone said "are you the SOB who shot down my drone" it's pretty much a different thing ... because the confrontation started when you were hovering over his fenced yard filming his family.

I'm simply not buying the boo hoo argument of the guy with the drone. As TFA said .. flying past is one thing, coming back and hovering is going a little far.

This is like demanding to be allowed on my property to retrieve the camera you illegally placed in my yard.

"Well, I came out and it was down by the neighbor's house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy that they've got under their back yard," Merideth said. "I went and got my shotgun and I said, 'I'm not going to do anything unless it's directly over my property.'"

That moment soon arrived, he said.

"Within a minute or so, here it came," he said. "It was hovering over top of my property, and I shot it out of the sky."

In this case, hovering 10 feet off the ground within the borders of his fence isn't some incidental flying overhead, it's pretty much entering your property and filming. And that should be a criminal act.

It's not like the guy was shooting down something 100 feet in the air or just flying past.

By the time the owner of the drone was about to indignantly enter the guy's property, he'd essentially trespassed once already, and knew the guy was armed. If that doesn't tell you to approach with caution you're an idiot.

This isn't random gun nut shoots shit for fun. This is someone responding to something which is flying so far into what is reasonably his private property as to be hard to accept any reason other than the guy running the drone is an ass and a peeping tom.

Do you really need an explanation, considering you just shot down their drone?

Starting with WTF was your drone with a camera doing hovering over my backyard taking pictures of my daughters, and moving on to why in hell shouldn't I be punching you, and advancing to why the hell should you expect to come on my property without me shooting you ...

Yes, absolutely the person operating the drone owes an explanation. Rather a lot, actually.

They took pictures in his backyard with no explanation, and now without explanation they want to come onto his property to discuss this.

Identify yourself, state your purpose, and explain to me why I'm not going to hurt you if you keep walking onto my property. You don't get to act indignant when your shit was hovering over my yard taking pictures. Not even a little.

If I found you in my fenced backyard with a camera, I'm also going to hurt you.

Rule 34.

Some things should not be googled. Ever.

Because the world doesn't want every idiot who thinks he's made a better keyboard constantly mucking about with stuff for the sake of it.

Some of us have been typing for decades, and simply don't care that you think it's time to redesign the keyboard.

"It's time to make some changes to keyboards" -- No, that's your opinion, it isn't fact.

You want a custom keyboard, buy it or make it. But don't be such an arrogant ass as to assume we give a damn about you whining about it. We don't need some damned keyboard designed by a fucking committee.

What a stupid article.

"They asked me, 'Are you the S-O-B that shot my drone?' and I said, 'Yes I am,'" he said. "I had my 40mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'"

ok that's very aggressive.

You know, I generally don't agree with open carry ... most of the world cringes at that, and it's something Americans cherish.

But if your drone was hovering in my backyard looking at my teenage daughters for no good reason, and if I'd shot it down and you were about to come onto my property in a threatening manner without explanation, I can see the point.

The drone pilot was being an ass, and about to trespass in an aggressive manner.

I actually hope the guy who shot it down just gets a small fine and let go. Because the drone hovering in your backyard isn't the kind of shit we should be accepting.

"Because our rights are being trampled daily," he said. "Not on a local level only - but on a state and federal level."

why did he have to bring the tea party into this?

It is entirely possible to think the Tea Party are loons and also think this guy has a point.

There simply can't be a free for all in which anybody for any reason can be going around peering into peoples private yards and houses just because they want to.

And, I'm sorry, but hovering over someone's backyard with a camera falls in the category of "no bloody way". Not for private citizens, corporations, or law enforcement without a warrant.