>"The party system itself is the issue"

BINGO.

*NOTHING* is really going to change until the voting public actually has some real choices- and that means more candidates and more parties and with a sane voting framework. The current system will simply not allow another other party to win, because people can't vote how they REALLY want to vote....

The solution is that we need to be able to use some type of instant runoff voting system that lets us rank candidates so we can vote our conscience without fear of wasting votes. Once that happens, other parties have a chance and new parties will start forming.

This is the result of the militarization of the police:
http://www.cato.org/raidmap

The problem isn't that someone can inject a fraudulent signal that does bad things. The problem is that THE OFFICIAL BROADCAST SIGNAL can include code that does bad things.

Just because code is part of a TV broadcast doesn't mean you should trust it. Just because code is part of a TV broadcast doesn't mean it should be able to hijack your stored internet credentials and automatically log into your account on any website, and take actions on those websites as if they were you, modify the content you see on those other sites, shouldn't be able to log into your web accounts as you, scan and phone-home a copy of all of your personal information accessible on that account. It shouldn't be able to spy on your activity and report it back. It shouldn't be able to scan and attack other devices on your home network.

Fucking asshats. They design a system with forty-two layers of DRM-enforcement security, but any signal that's part of the broadcast is given automatic authority to do anything it wants, given overriding authority against the TV owner's privacy and security.

What ever happened to products designed around the wants and needs and interests of the buyer, so that people will want to buy your product rather than your competitor's? These pieces of shit are obviously designed to serve and protect broadcasters, regardless of the owner's interests.

-

1) I guarantee if you say "Virginia State shooting" to any of the many millions of people around here, every single one will immediately assume you mean "a shooting at Virginia State University" and not "a shooting in the Commonwealth of Virginia" or "a shooting in the State of Virginia". And it would hold true for countless millions of people NOT around here, too.

2) I never suggested using "bare Virginia". I said to use "Virginia DMV" which is quite precise, domestic or international.

3) And "Commonwealth of Virginia" is certainly not "little known", it is on all kinds of documents and signs and materials. But I suppose everything is relative. Even so, my statements were and still are correct. http://www.virginia.gov/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

>"Virginia State Cracks Down On Uber, Lyft"

Virginia State is a university and Virginia is a Commonwealth. Sometimes these abbreviated topic lines really are bad.

Couldn't it just say Virginia DMV? It is actually *FEWER* characters.

>" 'They had bought an Android phone by mistake, and then had sought a better experience and a better life.' "

No, what they PROBABLY did was buy a piece of s***, low-end, low-cost Android phone and hated the experience. And that should surprise nobody.

Had they bought a Nexus 5, a Samsung Galaxy S4/5, an HTC One, an LG G2/3, etc, those same people would likely not be dumping it for an iphone.

I agree totally. It might get one seen, but it is distracting to the point it probably would be very dangerous for the wearer.

There's a semi-famous SciFi story first published in a 1990 edition of OMNI magazine:

THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT

Quite relevant, and quite funny.

Someone also made a seven and a half minute film of the story. It has a few cute video aspects, but overall it didn't come off so well and it's missing a few lines. I definitely recommend the original text link above rather the video version, but here's the video link anyway.

-

Thanks for the info

Not that it affects me (since I am in USA, use Linux, and would never use Bing) but I would love to know:

1) How MS knows you actually switched anything in your browser, unless they built in spyware to watch what you are doing.

2) If this applies to browsers other than IE.

3) If it applies to platforms other than MS-Windows.

4) As others said, what prevents you from immediately just switching back?

5) Are they really THAT desperate to have people use their search engine/home page?? (Although I guess it really isn't going to cost MS anything to "pay" for this promotion).

>"very few white people in a sea of African Americans"

Or "very few European Americans in a sea of black people"

If we are going to be PC, then term equality would be nice instead of having just one be "special".

I've written a little Android app that updates a webpage with your location. I've thought that people with an expensive sports car might like to use it by leaving it in their glove box when their car is serviced, and seeing if the garage takes it on a "Ferris Bueller" style jaunt around town.

I didn't think this was possible (as I run NoScript, Firefox and Linux), but apparently it might be, under IE on Windows, with WMI.

var locator = new ActiveXObject("WbemScripting.SWbemLocator");
var service = locator.ConnectServer(".");

// Get the info
var properties = service.ExecQuery("SELECT * FROM Win32_NetworkAdapterConfiguration");
var e = new Enumerator (properties);

Jesus, that looks horrible. I would hope that you have to add sites to your Local Intranet zone or whatever it's called these days before it'll work.

Your MAC address isn't visible outside your local subnet. Slashdot has no way of knowing your MAC address. (Unless perhaps you're using IPv6 without privacy extensions enabled, but I'm guessing Slashdot is years away from IPv6.)

Maybe you were infected by a stray creationist meme, chuckle.

-