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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Corporate media doesn't act in public's interes (Score 1) 71

by mrchaotica (#49771523) Attached to: Privacy Behaviors Changed Little After Snowden

There is too much news to cover the slow way exclusively.

No. There's too much irrelevant celebrity bullshit and unimportant fluff to do that, but that kind of "news" is designed to distract, not inform. Only cover the important issues and there's plenty of time.

As to this all being corporate media's fault... can you give me a counter non-corporate media example that is better?

Any comedian (and yes, I realize what that implies about what a fucking sad a state of affairs we're really in). In particular, John Stewart, Steven Colbert and John Oliver are infinitely more informative than any allegedly-"actual" "news." And I mean "infinitely" literally, by the way -- measuring the valuable insight of, say, Fox News is like dividing by zero.

For example, John Oliver devoted an entire half-hour to government surveillance, including an interview with Edward Snowden where he (humorously) distilled these privacy issues into terms the general public would understand. I'm fucking appalled to have to say this, but that is many orders of magnitude better journalism than I've seen from any of those pathetically worthless toadies who actually call themselves "journalists" in decades.

And that's not even all! If you look at Youtube's autoplay list for John Oliver's videos, it appears that just about every goddamn episode covers an actually-important issue (civil forfeiture, the wealth gap, crumbling infrastructure, police brutality, net neutrality, etc.) and does it better than anyone in the mainstream media has managed since Walter fucking Cronkite!

Comment: Re:did they damage the car? (Score 1) 267

by mrchaotica (#49771065) Attached to: D.C. Police Detonate Man's 'Suspicious' Pressure Cooker

Go fuck yourself. You've proven over and over again to be a worthless authoritarian bootlicker, and I see no reason to pay attention to anything you say.

For the benefit of everyone who isn't piece-of-shit Cold Fjord, I'll point out that (a) there's a difference between exercising civil rights and rioting, but the law enforcement agencies in the St. Louis area apparently can't tell what it is, and (b) the pattern of rounding people up for no reason (as well as "mob violence," if by "mob" you mean the police) started long before Michael Brown was shot.

Comment: Re:Not pointless... (Score 2) 267

by mrchaotica (#49770675) Attached to: D.C. Police Detonate Man's 'Suspicious' Pressure Cooker

But it's reality in this era.


You know what the reality of "this era" is? The reality is that we as Americans are safer (from all types of crime, including "terrorism") than at any point in history, and that DHS or other "anti-terrorism" jackbooted thugs have had NOT ONE GODDAMN THING to do with it!

The reality is that some terrorists got lucky ONCE, and shit-for-brains sheeple like you are letting the authoritarian powermongers in our government use that as an excuse to flush our civil rights down the toilet. Knock it off, dipshit!

Comment: Re:Are they LEOs (Score 1) 80

Our country is "uninvadeable" because of geography, not people with small arms. You can bet if a large standing army were to decide to enter the US, a handful of people with 9mm pistols aren't going to stop it.

Exactly, and that's why the restrictions on so-called "assault weapons" are an unconstitutional travesty.

Comment: Re:Who cares if it kills companies? (Score 1) 90

by mrchaotica (#49770259) Attached to: Tech Bubble? What Tech Bubble?
  1. Rule 1: put most of your money in a total stock market index fund (60-90%, depending on how risk-averse you are) with the lowest expense ratio possible.
  2. Rule 2: Put the rest of it in a bond index fund (10-40%), also with the lowest expense ratio possible.
  3. Rule 3: Never, ever sell, even in the worst recession imaginable, except to rebalance or (after retirement) to withdraw living expenses.

Rule 3 is the hard part (psychologically), which is why so many individual investors screw it up. The key is to understand that recessions are irrelevant because the market always eventually goes back up. (And yes, I am including Japan's market in that statement. If you had dollar-cost averaged into Japan's stock market before it crashed and then kept doing that, and did not sell, then you'd still have managed a decent return once you account for dividends.)

Comment: Yeah, no. (Score 4, Insightful) 367

by fyngyrz (#49765031) Attached to: What AI Experts Think About the Existential Risk of AI

Except that the opinion of people like Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates and Elon Musk is definitely worth more than any "majority" thinking differently.

Nosense. That's just hero worship mentality. Very much like listening to Barbara Streisand quack about her favorite obsessions.

Bill Gates' opinion is worth more than the average person's when it comes to running Microsoft. Elon Musk's opinion is worth more than the average person's when building Teslas and the like. Neither one of them (nor anyone else, for that matter) has anything but the known behavior of the only high intelligence we've ever met to go on (that's us, of course.) So it's purest guesswork, completely blind specuation. It definitely isn't a careful, measured evaluation. Because there's nothing to evaluate!

And while I'm not inclined to draw a conclusion from this, it is interesting that we've had quite a few very high intelligences in our society over time. None of them have posed an "existential crisis" for the the planet, the the human race, or my cats. Smart people tend ot have better things to do than annoy others... also, they can anticipate consequences. Will this apply to "very smart machines"? Your guess (might be) as good as mine. It's almost certainly better than Musk's or Gates', since we know they were clueless enough to speak out definitively on a subject they don't (can't) know anything about. Hawking likewise, didn't mean to leave him out.

Within the context of our recorded history, it's not the really smart ones that usually cause us trouble. It's the moderately intelligent fucktards who gravitate to power. [stares off in the general direction of Washington] (I know, I've giving some of them more credit than they deserve.)

Comment: Re: 32MB? (Score 2) 219

by mrchaotica (#49763279) Attached to: Google Developing 'Brillo' OS For Internet of Things

The trouble is that just about every fucking "IoT" device is designed to communicate over the Internet to the manufacturer's servers, even when it would make more sense for it to just communicate with a base station/server over the LAN and have the data never leave your house. Allegedly it's for ease of use, but that's bullshit -- it's for data-mining.

Comment: Re:That's recklessly endangering America! (Score 1) 135

by fyngyrz (#49761711) Attached to: NSA-Reform Bill Fails In US Senate

You are crazy. Here is an example of the democratic process working, yet you desperately have to search for some conspiracy theory to continue your irrational hatred of the USA.

No. It's an example of a republic not working. What history books tend to call "decline and fall" when it's happened in the past. It is what happens when governments completely lose sight of, and concern with, and respect for, the principles that brought them into being.

This is real life, not a Tom Clancy novel.

Oh, we know. In Clancy's works the US TLAs are the good guys. That's not been the case for decades now.

There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson