Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Climate Denialism funded entirely by Koch (Score 1) 456

You know you're lying. Just admit it. Just admit that you'd rather billions of people die than you have to admit that you're a bitch boy for billionaires, a fool and the sort of low information braying self and other destructive jackass you like to proclaim others to be Admit you'd rather destroy the entire world than be shown to be wrong, because you're , you know ego-dysfunctional, weak and basically a sociopathic predator with onlya loosely-defined grip on reality, basically, you're a subhuman piece of shit.

Just , you know, admit it. You'll feel better.

Comment Re:Climate Denialism funded entirely by Koch (Score 1) 456

Know what the real difference betwen people like me and people like you is? In my worst imaginings, I give you a trial. In your best actions, you mass-murder hundreds of millions of innocent people and , thanks to the amount of Koch Libertarian crack you've shoved up your fucking nose over the years, in your life long role as a fool for billionaires' greed and indifference to human life, you aid and abet the worst crime any group of humans has ever inflicted on humanity and call it "Fweedom".

Comment Re:Climate Denialism funded entirely by Koch (Score 1) 456

So, defendant Anonymous, are you familiar with the term "cherry picking?". Why don't you tell the court what you understand the the phrase "cherry picking" to mean?

Defendant Anonymous, do you turn to the internet for information about climate change? You do? Since you know what cherry picking is and you have already described yourself as highly engaged with the topic of climate change, did you ever consider the possiblity that this statistic was itself cherry picking? Did you actively seek out disconfrirmatory evidence for this statistic?

Defendant Anonymous, I refer you to your posting on Slashdot Mar 2012 where you directly accused a poster of cherry picking his statistic. So you were well aware not only of the concept fo cherry picking but that cherry picking was used in the climate change debate....

Defandant Anonymous, I present to you a graph posted by a fellow poster WoofyGoofy in rebuttal to a comment you made describing "no climate change in nearly 19 years", do you recognize that graph? Would you say that that graph describes an instance of cherry picking? Speka up Defandant Anonymous.

Defendant Anonymous, were you aware of what people said the consequences of global warming would be upon hundreds of millions of people, if it were true? Speak up so the court can hear you Defendant Anonymous. Yes you were? And yet, you continued to post statements as facts , statements which a reasonably prudent person who did not possess a wanton disregard for the truth, would have rejected as likely falsehods. Isn't that right Defendant Anonymous? By your own measure, the statements you made were most likely false, weren't they Defendant Anonymous?

Ladies nad Gentlemen of the jury, we have here nothing more than the very description of the law under which Defendant Anonymous has been charged- Gross Negligence and a Depraved Indifference For Human Welfare With Special Circumstances.

Ladies and Gentlement of the jury, Defendant Anonymous and millions more just like him are precisely and individually culpable for the destrcutive falsehoods they either knew or should have known they were spreading through the years 1990-2020. These were years in which the Great Climate Crisis still could have been averted save for the actions of Defendant Anonymous and his ilk, actions which displayed a Depraved Indifference to Human Welfare. Actions which they knew or shoudl have known would contribute to the millions of deaths and political upheavals we see nightly on the news. ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the Supreme Court in 2025 had already found that each citizen, individually has and always has had an implicit, unshirkable obligation to be honest and to act in good conscience in their utterances and writings when the fate of other human beings rests in the balance of those utternaces, no matter how small a part their individual utterances and writings may have played in the ultimate fate of those fellow humans. That same ruling found that each individual can be charged with the totality of the crime to which they contributed, and that theories of so called "proportional guilt" serve only to thwart a justice which must not be thwarted.

  What we have before us here in the public postings of Defendant Anonymous is nothing less than a criminal act of the highest order, Because of Defendant Anonymous, and others soon to be tried, the Earth is where it is and there is no going back.

Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, I submit that there is one verdict which wil serve justice, a verdict of guilty on the charge before you. Defendant Anonymous knowingly and with malice aforethought made utterances and wrote statements which he himself knew or should have known were likely false. Bring back a verdict fo guilty, and may God have mercy on his soul.

Comment Climate Denialism funded entirely by Koch (Score 0) 456

The fact is that the world and the US DID have a consensus regarding human-induced climate change prior to the Koch brothers injection of denialism into the public discussion. You have only to read some of the eexhaustive and authoritative books available to you : Dark Money, Merchant of Doubt Doubt Is Their Product and The Hockey Stick And The Climate Wars to understand therehas been a deliberate coordinated attack on climate science and climate scientists for the express purpose of deferring and delaying action on climate change. The Koch brothers own study told them the mainstream science was correct, and they buried that study.

Alright then. What are we really looking at? We are looking at a group of terrorists who have built and set off a bomb called global climate warming with the specific intent of handing the world's governments- which governments they have openly called for the desmantling and destruction of- a problem so large they will not be able to cope with the fallout. They have set off a bomb which they believe will cause the collapse of the United States Government. In this they have been aided by anti-government conservatives, conservative moevements, conservative think tanks, other conservative billionaires, all stripes of conservative publications, editors writers and bloggers. Each and everyone of is a terrorist or a supporter of terorism and the result of those terrrorist activities is hundreds of millions dead and condemend to death the permanent destrcution of the habitiblity of large portions of the Earth , mass envrionmentally caused political upheaval, population dislocation wars and diseases taking the lives of yet hundrends of millions more.

Those are crimes. Those are crimes so vast, the criminals believe they can never be charged with them. The criminals believe they will not be held accountable. The criminals believe there are too many of them to be prosecuted and their actions resemble too closely mere opinion offering to ever be labled as crimes.

I'll give them this- their plan to radically deconstrcut then reconstrcut the American government is going to suceeded beyone their wildest dreams. Because under our pre-Global Warming system of government, they would have gotten away with everything. But as we the afflicted, the destroyed, the people forced to live under the New Koch-Inflicted Reality, we the victims of Scalia and Thomas and Americans for Prosperity and the Wall Street Journal and Scaife and Murdoch and Norquist and all the tens of thousands of other organizations and individuals who together joined to systematically destroy our species common heritage, our ability to sustain life human civiliation on this planet, take power they will meet a very different United States Government. They won't be facing corporate water-carrying bitch boys and and fucking house niggers like Holder and Obama. No, it'll be more like the full Black Lives Matter treatment, joined by Yellow Lives Matter and Red Lives Matter and While Lives Matter and All Lives Matter. They'll be facing real justice courtesy of the United States Government and in accordance with the United States Government's laws, served up hot and they'll be no limit to scope of their assets we'll seize, or the nooses the United States Government's courts of law will sentence them to swing from.

In the pre-Global Warming American government, no mere opinion maker would have been put on trial for his life for "opinions" he offered. Under the post Global Warming American Government, they're very lkely find that the tolerance for mass-murder via mass-lies has been exhausted and, just as the world will witness unthinkable climatic and ecological and social events, so too the world will witness the trial of "average" citizens for Crimes Against Humanity. Let them tell the court and the world why they thought the scientists were wrong. Let them be subject to cross examination and then let the jurors decide for themselves if what is on display in the courtrooms is anything other than Gross Depravity and Indifference to Human Life with Special Circumstances -i.e. the effected number more than one million- a capital offense.

Here we come. Here we come. The horrifying reality you unleashed on billions of your vicitms is not going to overwhelm us, or overwhelm our sytem of government, or overwhelm our justice system or save you from *what you have done*. Nothing is going to save you from what you have done.

You're terrorists and if people today can't put that together then people tomorrow - and I mean tomorrow- certainly will have no problem with it. People wonder why the US government didn't just kill Hitler early. The asnwer si because the US government was shot through with anti-semites and fascists, especially FDR's cabinet and the office of the Secretary of State was filled with anti-Semites who actively hid first hand acconunts of what Hitler was doing in Poland and Hungary from FDR. Don't think we're any different. The judiciary and Congress is shot through with people who are in effect anti-government terrorists, determined to destroy the government from within. Thus Citizen's United. Thus continuation of deomcracy-gassing Dark Money politics. Thus the contiguous anti-science, anti-action-against-climate-change decisions flowing out of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court. The Nazis too thought they were above the law because they WERE the law. History proved how wrong they were. History proved there there exists a certain, unchanging, God given moral truths and obligations which no one has the power to controvert and whosoever does so, at all times and in all places without exception for particulars is guilty of Crimes Against Humanity.

Here we come. Here we come. This is not your father's diffident government, happy to compromise with mass murders and people who would destroy all life on earth.

There's never, ever, without exception, been a crime the that comes near the depravity and scope of destructiveness such as you've committed or a class of criminal as purely evil as you manifestly are. So get ready. Get ready for the Big Change in Government which you so feverntly sought to instantiate. I don't think you're going to like it the way you thought you would, but maybe when they break your body, then they'll change your mind.

Comment Linux's Big Chance (Score 1) 566

OK this is Linux's Big Chance. The nost savvy most technically literate most intelligent people are going to, for the first time, really really be looking for alternatives to Windows because of this shit. I know I am (not to say I qualify as any of the above). Those people, that 5-10% decide for their familes, their inlaws their friends their co-workers what's cool, what's great and what you shoudl avoid.

So is Linux ready or does it still expect its everyday users to be keen to memorize lots and lots of magical incantations - "sudo apt etc etc etc etc" - in order to really GetShitDone?

Every time I wanted to do something on previous version of Ubuntu- purpotedly the most user-friendly version of Linux out there- I quickly found myself instructed by the cognesceti to solemnly intone this and that long incantation into the darkness of a dos prompt. That's a deal breaker.

Does anyone in Linux-land really understand that very basic fact? People know how to use my computers by memorizing trails through GUIs. That mimics how primitve people (people like me and and you) learned to navigate and find their way around the real world; they used signposts and landmarks to remind them where to do next. Folks, accept it- this is how are brains are wired to find things in a complex environment.

Text is NOT how we are wired to find things. We have no good memory for text- it's always an explicit labor of memorization. And those memories are remarkably frail and subject to confusion with similar text-based memories. That's why indexes and filing cabinets and encyclopedias are alphabetical- because otherwise we'd never find that thing we were looking at before just by remembering where it was last time.

But I can remember how to get to the store, how to get home, where that vacation camp is that I last visited 20 years ago. Because it's a trail, just the kind of thing my brain is specialized to remember, with landmarks thattrigger further memories, landmarks which effectively let me offload the work of explicit memorization.

So.. do we have a real GUI in Linux yet or am I going to have to sudo apt my way around still? Because this is most definitely the magical moment Linux has been waiting for - the Gigantic, Customer-Alienating, Self-Inflcited, Grand Windows Fuck Up.

Comment Re:"My group is nuanced, yours is homogenous" (Score 1) 459

Very intersting obviously I've been schooled, so thank you fellow Slashdotters.

Monopoly is what you get when there is no regulation. Does anyone really want to argue that? Throughout history, what we've had is large corporations and banks getting larger without limit as they consume smaller efforts with anti-competitive practices, practices which are "natural" and dont' involve forcible coercion.

Sorry but Libertarianism is completely confused, at best and a refuge for scoundrels at worst. The whole Milton Friedman-Ayn Rand-Alan Greespan wing of libertariansim is just thinly disguised sociopathy. Rand herself was a true blue sociopath as evidenced not just from her policy recommendations but her personal utterances and interperonsal relations and Friedman, lest we forget, helped, approved and supported Pinochet , a torturer, terrorist, and mass murderer. and Greenspan's fantasy that the market is self correcting under all crcumstances, that it's impossible, as in physics-style impossible, for something like the 2008 crash to every happen in a market such as ours.

As far as indentured servitude goes, since when are libertarians concerned with one party's ability to inflict "duress" n another party? That is the whole point of not limiting financial power inequalities. If I own all the land through deals i made, I can shut off food production to everyone else and no one can do anything about it. If me and my buddies get together and decide not to hire Black people, then that's our business. If we decide to make a list of people to whom we dont' want food sold to or jobs offered to then that's out business.

People have power in this world to the extent that they control resources. For all practical purposes there is no upper limit on the resources a person can control under Libertarian schemes- a fact Libertarians are well aware of. IT follows immediately that there is no upper limit on the power Libertariansim gives someone over other people's lives and fates and their ability to pursue happiness . Libertarianism could give a shit about creating a fair and equitable world. It's monomanically obsessed with process and keeping the number of rules which govern that process as small as possible and what comes out the other end of this for real flesh and blood members of society who have to live and suffer under this "purity" , well , who really gives a fuck? It's a kind of poitical and social autism.

  It's not a coincidence that Rand Paul would roll back the civil rights legislation of the 60s. That's a prinicpled decision on his part that comes straight out of the Libertairan playbook.

Sorry, it's nto just that the Koch brothers have given it a bad name. It goes all the way back to Greespan and Friedman and Ayn Rand . This is a political movement built upon the predatory and incredibly short-sighted ideas of sociopaths and autistics. It just is.

One more thing. Libertariansim shares a LOT in common with Marxism in a very specific way- it suffers from 19th century-physics-envy. Like Marxism, it posits that a set of "laws" which should govern a "system" and if those "laws" are followed then the sytem's behavior will be predictable.

Well folks, that is just pure physics-envy bullshit when it's applied to hyper complex "systems" like "the economy" and "people's economic behavior", which are "systems" only in the sense that you have applied that word "system" to them and in no other meaningful sense.

This whole 19th century "call it a system and devine the sytem's behavior from a few underlying princples" is absolute wishful thinking. If you want to reduce it to a few underlying principles then reduce it to the physical forces - gravity the strong force, the weak force etc. and come show it to everyone when you're done. And good luck with that, too.

Comment Life Liberty and Really? (Score 1, Insightful) 459

What are we supposed to think when the group explicitly replaces "the pursuit of happiness" with "property"?

From their site:

Statement of Intent: "I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the State of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of individualsâ(TM) rights to life, liberty, and property."

Pretty much sums up this group of people up. I think we all know a monpolistic, anti-social, predatory-capitalism-loving, big-bank-hugging, Koch-worshipping, Grover Norquist-loving, environment-trashing, indentured-servitude (hey, it's a contract btween consenting adults) pushing libertarian sociopath when we see one ...or 20,000

Comment Indoctrination? Good luck with that. (Score 5, Interesting) 132

Here's the full quote:

"In early grades, students differentiate between responsible and irresponsible computing
behaviors. Students learn that responsible behaviors can help individuals while
irresponsible behaviors can hurt individuals. They examine legal and ethical
considerations for obtaining and sharing information and apply those behaviors to protect
original ideas. As students progress academically, they engage in legal and ethical
behaviors to guard against intrusive applications and promote a safe and secure
computing experience. "

What these Kings of the Universe don't realize is normal people don't share and will never share their Ayn Rand -cocaine-driven amphetamine-fueled vision of extreme indivuduality at the expense of the health of society (which is the bedrock upon which protection of individuality rests).

So, sure, go ahead promote those discussions. The more discussion there is, the less well it goes for software patent lawyers like Brad Smith who, readers should know, basically originated the idea of using software patents as an offense weapon to supress innovation while he was at M$:

which directly led to all other tech companies following suit and finally the fantastical, supernatrual prosperity of every Chinese take-out in Tyler, Texas.

All that's going to happen is they're going to find out no one shares their idea of societal good and justice. Every survey finds that young people are far more concerned with creating an fair, free and egalitarian society that benefits everyone, rather than the winner-take-all psychopathic shithole that is America at this particular tick of the clock.

  Not everyone blew their brains out snorting coke while reading Ayn Rand in the 80s. That's a particular generation and they have a particular , uh, "view" of what the goals laws of society should support. Going on 40 years later now, it's getting to be old-man-dying-time for this particular strain of sociopathic, societal predators. Can't happen too soon for my money. Here, take it with you; fuckin' see ya later.

Comment They'd rather pay than play (Score 2) 134

The fact that M$ and Oracle and IBM and all the rest of the "victims" of "trolls" would rather pay the trolls than do what is intellectually ethcially and morally right- lobby Congress to ban software patents (and yes trolls, those ARE a definable thing) tells you something. They'd rather endure the billions lost to trolls than have to compete in the open marketplace, without their trivial patents. If they didn't have this barrier to entrance and the threat of crushing legal judgements, then they'd have to compete on the basis of the goodness of their product offerings.

Obviously, such a "disaster" is monetarily more frigthening to them than losing to billions to trolls.

It gives you some idea of the amount of market supression and concomitant loss of innovation the consumer is experiencing without ever knowing it.

Believe me, lot's of "agreements to be acquired" by small companies are in reality software-patent blackmail- you can sell us your comapny, or we can go to court.

It how they make sure that all innovation accrues to them, and they retain all real financial and political power in the world.

Comment And computers hae too much memory too (Score 1) 522

And computers have too much memory also. Who would ever need more than 64k? It gives you a glimpse into what sort of mind people like Tom Wheeler and his Republican buddies have. They've effectively completely sat out the last 20 years of tech progress. They have no access- as personal memories - of the lessons, lore, and legends of computing and the internet and consequently lack the shared base of facts upon which sound judgments can be built. They are totally cut off from the weltanschauung of the modernity and are effectively legislating across time, legislating from the past. They have no idea what the cultural refernce I made above refers to. They have no idea of how it is shorthand for the tech insight: "if you built it, they will come" . If you create it, if you allow it, it will be quickly be put to extraordinary use which no one can now foresee, but which will become the stuff of future economic activity ....and the taxes guys like you live off.

Comment Not to mention they're all honeypots (Score 1) 225

Yeah the FBI seeing the photos is probably a non-issue since a large number of them are probably honeypots in the first place. It's a product of how much contempt they have for this man that they think one of them will eventually work.


Snowden caught in honeypot while stepping out on his girlfriend.

God, wouldn't they love that?

Comment just a thought (Score 1) 432

I don't know if these people have done anything or not; you might think that people that intelligent would not stoop that low. I will offer this though.

One of the persistent and compelling illusions I had in life was that somewhere, there existed a self-selected group of people for whom a primary concern was to just be decent to each other.

I am not sure where I got this idea from, but if you have it, if you think that *this* group of people united by *this* purpose or POV or goal or whatever is going to be some kind of refuge from Assholedom, then you owe it to yourself before you waste any more of your life looking for such a group to just stop. Put it down and walk away.

My first pursuit of this mythological beast was with a community of artists and counter-cultural types. I thought without jocks or grades or the pursuit of money or even fame people would have nothing but each others fellowship to rely on and that would be a kind of uniting force, or something. How very young and wrong I was .

After some years spent pursuing that ghost, I next chased another another idea I had always had in my head- that academics, university types, were just naturally a cut above in terms of decency and non-aggression. In my imagination they were people to whom the stated ideals of a university- diversity, the pursuit of truth, respect for excellence,

valuing of curiosity and the impartial unbiased pursuit of knowledge - were real living things. The university was THEIR place which abided by THEIR values and stood as a bastion against Assholedom.

So I went to university and I did meet people as described- a couple. And the rest were sort of Super Assholes - people who nourished grudges, pursued revenge via administrative back-channeling and complaint processes, for any perceived slight or offense, advanced themselves through undermining others, sincerely worked to

undermine others simply because they didn't like them, and worked the system as best they could to horde time, reputation, money and power. It was one of the worst

environments I've been in. At one point a recent-hire prof confided in me that "they" - the other professors in the department- "had taken him into a room and gone to town on him for spending time preparing for his classes. If he wanted them to recommend him for tenure, it was going to stop. The gist f it was that there was no reward for teaching,

only for publishing and grant getting- things that brought the university prestige and money. Nothing else mattered and the degree to which nothing else mattered was total. I

asked him who "they" were, exactly, and his reply was "all of them. Every one of them." Of course the teaching is what you'd expect given the above. And that's not even the

worst dirty trick- and that's what it was- I saw there. Not by a long shot .

After that I got it into my head that business, corporation, out of necessity, would be a place where the reality principle reigned supreme. Even if it wasn't friendly per se, at least it would be grounded in some kind of market discipline and that discipline would realize itself in the relations between people within the company.

I know, but in my defense, this was around 2000.

Here's the thing. If it's true, -but then harassment charges are just another arrow in the quiver or these types - this is not surprising , because *that's what people are*. If for some reason that actually doesn't describe you and you know it,then know with certainty: you're on your own There is no *good* group of people united by any property or purpose out there. The best you can hope for is a occasional light from someone you are completely removed from, say whose books you read. If you really want to swing for the wall, the trifecta is your mother, your spouse and your dog. If you can trust all three of those , then know you're luckier than most .

Comment Re:I'm a pro central gov't socialist (Score 1) 148

Ignore the trolls on slashdot who hate the government. What you said is exactly right. Netflix has a pretty good piece interviewing current and former Presidents (Bush I) NSA and CIA directors. What comes across is that there is not unanimity about surveillance, the WoT or how to run it or even the limits of governmental powers with respect to fighting the WoT. Some disapprove (!) of the killing of US citizen al-Awalaki (sp?) and see it as a slippery slope. Some are nervous about ubiquitous surveillance.

The point is, you're exactly right. The government is not Dr Evil. The trolls in this thread just get off on a certain small circumscribed set of ideas. They're less like thoughtful people and more like rats pulling that same lever over and over again in order to get their high. This describes most anti-government types. It's like a thought addiction, place in their minds where they can get their rage on.

To their point about Hitler et. al., it's they who lack an understanding of history. These guys didn't rise to power despite the will of the people. They didn't overwhelm the government and take control. The people in those nations themselves cheered when they took control. They WANTED it to happen. Hitler never would have come to power if Wall Street hadn't tanked the world's economy. At the time, the post war hyper inflation in Germany had subsided and things were looking better for Germany. Then the Wall Street speculators destroyed the economy and hyperinflation kicked in again and the people themselves wanted a "strong man" and a scapegoat and the rest is history.

There is nothing in any democracy which prevents its own people from willing it out of existence. That's what happened in Germany and Italy.

The best hedge against that is a stable prosperous nation. The best way to get that is to have a strong central government to act as a counter-force to the unlimited power corporations would otherwise have.


Slashdot Top Deals

"Don't talk to me about disclaimers! I invented disclaimers!" -- The Censored Hacker