Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Okay, I'll bite (Score 4, Insightful) 592 592

"Mr. Snowden's dangerous decision to steal and disclose classified information had severe consequences for the security of our country..."

Here it is, put up or shut up: name one single way that I personally am less "secure" due to Snowden's actions.

That's it. One single example.

Either that, or quit pushing this bullshit.

Comment Re:The joys of youth (Score 2, Insightful) 147 147

Since it's not possible to install the just-released Visual Studio 2015 without .NET 4.6, this means developers must make the difficult choice between using the latest tools or risking crippling bugs such as this one.

If you're a dev, you shouldn't be chasing versions. Find a stable version, stick with it through your project. SE already has enough of that "stuff changing out from under me" feel without adding to the issue.

Yeah, easy to say. When I was programming Microsoft systems (admittedly 20 years ago) the problem was that you were faced with the choice of upgrading and risking crap like this or not upgrading and dealing with problems that Microsoft would only fix "in the next upgrade".

So glad I left that behind.

Comment Re:So the good questions were ignored. (Score 5, Funny) 557 557

Just like many people predicted in the submission for asking the questions, it looks like the good, hard-hitting questions were totally ignored.

I doubt she has an opinion one way or another on systemd.

First of all, if you are "neutral" on the horrific abuse that is systemd you are part of the problem!!!

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 2) 581 581

and yet... NOBODY (but you) GIVES A DAMN.

He was stripped of his law license in Arkansas as a result of perjury. Somebody besides me cared quite a bit - including a judge and the AR bar association.

It's always interesting that folks like yourself think sexual harassment is the absolute worst thing a guy can do - unless he's a Democrat.

Comment Re:Same thing happening to James O'Keefe (Score 1) 334 334

That may be, but I'm suspecting the immigration workers aren't really that organized.

It find it far more likely that he behaves like the conspiratorial ass that he is, instantly either pissing them off or setting off their "this guy ain't normal" alarm, which then causes a deeper questioning. Lots of the conspiracy nuts are walking self-fulfilling prophecies.

I've yet to see anything from O'Keefe that would suggest he's a conspiracy nut. Unfortunately.

Comment Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? (Score -1, Troll) 334 334

Can we get someone to explain how its OK for the IRS to harass people hoping to change policy but it's bad for DHS to harass people hoping to change policy?

I'm not sure what you mean. It is not legal for the IRS to "harass people hoping to change policy."

It is, however, legal for the IRS to ask organizations claiming tax exemption as charities to show that they are not engaging in political lobbying (because political organizations are not tax exempt). If that's what you call "harassing," then, no, not only is it not illegal, it is in fact part of IRS's job.

I see we're checking off the media matters list here. Say, since Lois Lerner did nothing wrong why do you suppose she pleaded the 5th? Note that it's not possible for an honest person to have need of the 5th amendment.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 4, Informative) 581 581

The politically correct crowd will willingly ignore horrible behavior as long as the person is otherwise supportive of their cause. I point to William Jefferson Clinton (Bill) as my defacto example of someone, who had they been had an (R) after their name, would have been judged completely differently by the PC (read, liberal) crowd.

So I take the cries of the PC crowd to be largely hypocritical.

In what sense?

I assume you're referring to his affair, I'd say the reaction seems mild because a) affairs are tough for the family and a personal indictment but not really a public policy issue and are generally ignored, b) Clinton never presented himself as an example of a perfect family man so it wasn't very hypocritical, c) the reaction of the Republicans was completely over the top.

I don't deny that the PC crowd can be hypocritical but I don't think they're moreso than any other group.

His "affair"? No, his multiple affairs, his predatory sexual assaults on subordinates, and his perjuring himself in a lawsuit (while also suborning perjury through witness coaching) were the issues that the liberals overlook and continue to try to obfuscate (as you've done above). Had a Republican done even half of that we would still be reading about it in the press.

Comment Re:The cost of doing business (Score 1) 215 215

Well sure. I guess I generally assume that when people say 'the cost will be passed on to customers' I read: 'the extra expense will result in an immediate increase in price for services'.

I mean, obviously people realize that the money ultimately comes from customers. If you presume that statement to say otherwise then you clearly misunderstand what is being said.

Uh, no. With a large established company like TW this is simply a drop in the bucket. My point stands.

Comment Re:The cost of doing business (Score 1) 215 215

Perhaps the CC companies permit you to pass along swipe fees there, but in much of the world, they don't. They should probably be prohibited by law from prohibiting you from passing those fees on, but ha ha ha

LOL, here we go again. Of course you pass on the swipe fees, unless you have a special printing press in the back that prints money to be used to cover swipe fees.

What you're missing is that all customers pay the same amount, meaning if I pay with cash part of my cash is covering other people's swipe fees. I usually pay with cash so, yeah, bit of a bummer. However, you'll find at a lot of stores on large purchases they'll bargain way better when you wave a wad of cash under their nose.

Comment Re:The cost of doing business (Score 1) 215 215

As poster above stated, there are a few alternatives:
1. Customer pays
2. Shareholders pay (in the form of less profit)
3. Employees pay in the form of not getting a raise or no increase in compensation
4. The company spends less money on other things to make up the cost

I think you missed the point, so I'll bring it up again. TW - like most profitable companies - makes all of its money from sales to customers. Therefore, for any expense that TW has the statement "the customers are going to pay for it" is true. Therefore, it's meaningless.

Let me help you:

2 Shareholders pay (in the form of less profit)

<eyeroll> Yes, that'll happen either way. The money that the shareholders earn (in the form of dividends) still comes from customers. Again - they either have a printing press for money or it comes from customers.

3. Employees pay

Yeah, and where does employee pay come from? A magical printing press in the back room, of course, that prints the money that pays employees.

Oh, wait, no, this is reality, so the money COMES FROM CUSTOMERS. <facepalm>

4. The company spends less money on other things....

(Do I have to repeat this at this point?)

The *only* other options for "who pays for this?" would be if an outside investor approached them and, for whatever reason, says "Hey, you got screwed on that court case. Tell you what, for x% of your company I'll pay that judgement for you." Put another way, they could sell extra stock (and thus devalue all existing stock) to raise the money. For a company of their size it's probably not worth it.

All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.