Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Back for a limited time - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Let's just skip right to 1984 (Score 1) 167

Right, so their biggest fear is that people who are tired of what the government is doing will be empowered to stop them.
So I'm 100% dead on. /Regardless/ of the motives empowering these people to act change.

So really isn't it still that the government is doing shit we don't want them to, which is giving these people the opportunity in the first place? Perhaps if the government(s) of the world stopped being greedy power hungry pricks we would see different results?

Comment Re: Sounds like a psycopath. (Score 1) 486

That's because the masses are the real threat. Small groups hurting innocent people are not a real threat to those in power.
They have all the security they need.

They're far more concerned with people voting them out or otherwise movements that would remove them from power. So they want to monitor everyone before hand so they can stop any movements before they gain enough traction to remove them from power. No one likes to give it up.

Comment Re:Let's just skip right to 1984 (Score 3, Insightful) 167

There's enough security for important people to be safe.

The security isn't to prevent terrorists, they're not afraid of terrorists.

They're afraid of average joe with a six pack getting tired of their shit and voting / forcing them out of power. If billions of people in a country say 'I'm tired of your shit, you're too corrupt, greedy, and we don't want you in power anymore'. That's the real threat, that's what they actually fear.

Ideally they want to make sure that the average people, who are the only one to interfere with any of their 'deals' 'laws' 'bills' etc, are average joe speaking out, saying hey, this isn't good for me, don't do it.

Instead they want to know everything you're doing so they can counter whatever it is, a rally, public speaking etc, and be prepared to denounce you so they can do whatever x thing they want to do.

Oh? Political activist? Against some oil deal the government is brewing? Plan to take a flight to another city to rally more support from average joe? I don't think so. You're on the no fly list for risk of terrorism. No no..we'd never abuse that list..honest..

So yeah, there you have it. They did it, it's working so far. They don't like what you're doing, they'll make it difficult for you to travel, half answers to try and fix it, blank excuses with no one truly responsible for whatever it is governmentally that's blocking you.

Hey, while they're at it, let's get you investigated by the CRA or IRS just incase you made a mistake. Oh, finally getting bogged down by all these things? Giving up on that trip to talk about Bill (whatevergreedythinglinesmypockets) good...good...

Comment Re:But they say adblock is bad (Score 1) 223

Although I as far as I'm aware, none of my microphones in any of my devices a nearly high enough quality to pick up frequencies that high, in fact, my current PC mic tops out at 16 KHZ.

So I'm not too worried about it, but at the same time, and you wonder why we are tired of all adds and block the shit out of ut.

Comment Re:"not more expensive screen technologies"? (Score 1) 25

Actually human vision is very, very fast, and cannot be measured in terms of latency for organic visual acuity.

Humans can see the difference between 1 MS response time and 10 MS response time.
What the measurement is for human vision is not how fast it can detect a change, but how much has to change before we can detect it.
E.G If you had one line of dots traveling at 1 MS and another line travelling at 10 MS - we would be able to tell there is a difference IF there was enough dots.

Like half a screen moving to the right at 10 MS and the other half of the screen moving to the right at 1 MS.

Analog vision is very different from electronic measurement.

Comment Re:What's the current $400 build? (Score 1) 86

I full out said it's a lot more expensive.

But a PC on it's own has many uses.
The GRAPHICS CARD ALONE is more than a playstation 4.
So yeah, graphics are going to be better. I said it, I admit it.

No for a lower cost effective system to enjoy games, playstation 4 is cheaper, depending how many games you buy.
There are triple A quality PC games you can get for less than 60$ - over the years, eventually the PC becomes cheaper too if you like to own a lot of games.

Comment Re:Queue the PCMasterRace kids (Score 1) 86

Superiority isn't really based on 'which platform you enjoy'.

Superiority would be a combination of performance capability, game capability, graphic capability, network capability, etc.

PC IS the superior gaming system, period. It's also a lot more expensive.

Which one YOU should purchase, is the one you have the most fun on, has the games and interfaces you enjoy / want to use.

P.S We don't have cross platform games because PC gamers control interfaces are superior in sensitivity and accuracy, and would rock console players face off forcing mass rage quitting of call of duty.


Comment Re:Or perhaps... (Score 1) 618

This kind of response shows an extreme bias to anything competitive. This would like like you calling all soccer players pyscho because they play against other human players.

What you've really shown is that you're a sore loser and don't have any kind of sportsmanship, I'm guessing a really frustrated league of legends player who only plays the bots now, because you can win that way.

The difference in this here for player vs environment, is the same people in pvp, except they don't have the skills to play well enough to defeat other players, and get very frustrated with that, so they demand co-op only environments where they only win.

This is the same as if a game was just exceptionally hard, had AI that constantly defeated you, this is the kind of response I would accept from a lot of people who can't handle a loss.

Comment In other news, less people visit site. (Score 2) 474

People discovered that they don't actually need to access the news site and just go elsewhere.

Look, your joy of over advertising the fuck out of everything is dying. Like climate change, you went too far, you fucked up, you can't scale back now.

We're tired of fake download buttons downloading malware, sites trying to misdirect us or trick us into clicking things for that precious revenue stream. We're tired of being tricked and treated like shit by advertisers.

So now we block them. We don't want to see it, at all, and you can't make it up to us now. Shit has hit the fan, I guess you all should have thought of this before 'someone ruined it for the rest of you'

Should have been more choosey over what advertising agency gets to run ads on your site.

Comment Holy Shit - Discovery - Blue Prints can be emailed (Score 1) 127

Seriously? Yeah, snap together house is cool, but making a big tech splash because you can fucking email it?

Holy fuck sauce batman, get on the bat phone, someone figured out you can email blue prints to places for fabrication.

And what the fuck is carbon neutral? The blue prints because you emailed them through the shit ton of electronics chewing on coal? Or the wood the shop uses to create it, from the trees they cut down with power tools, which used carbon based material to create, which consume gasoline or power to operate. My god, everyone is a politician.

Comment They went too far. (Score 1) 307

Ads used to be fine and not bother me, until they were like RAWR IN YOUR FUCKING FACE READ MY ADDDDDDDD.

And it was often fake bullshit on top of it, instrusive, annoying, adding malware, tracking cookies and tons of other shit.

Now I see zero ads. You went too far. Too many fake download buttons etc.
If ads were reasonable, like a passing billboard, vs driving down the street and a newspaper flying onto your window on your car, I'd allow them again to support sites.

Comment Did you know? (Score 1) 207

Did you know, if you buy a solar panel, attach it to a 12v regulator, buy multiple batteries and operate on solar power only, you can significantly reduce the power your PC consumes and pay less in hydro? You'll only need to charge it on grid during colder seasons when there's less sun and more cloud!

We can always spend more money to consume less of a resource. You can buy a small car instead of a truck too. It doesn't always work. Sometimes we need / want a truck for the things we do.

Sometimes I need 8 cores. However, I do let it balance power, reduce clock speed when not in full use.

Comment Re:Renewable versus fossil - where is nuclear? (Score 1) 292

Whoa someone is a super pro nuclear type.

Single distribution points include everything such as hydro dams to nuclear power.
It doesn't mean the entire world runs off a single faclility, or that it was suggested that everything would be nuclear.

That's you likely being intentionally dumb so that you can try and make a stronger argument. Maybe you're just pro power utilities.

There are states in the US that utilities have started crying over people using solar technology on their homes, simply because they are using less power, but they won't admit it.

You're acting as if the suggestion of using distributed renewable energy like solar panels is some impossible myth fariy that doesn't exist yet and the technology isn't there.

It is there, it's used all over already, we it's affordable, it's real. The only all or nothing scenario for your pro nuclear is Radiation, or no Radiation.

History has shown us that we apparently can't fucking manage nuclear technology safely on a planet that can be unpredictable, so get your head out of your ass and take this opportunity to educate yourself on true potential technologies, and take a step back from the nuclear / fossil fuel propaganda.

Radition can quite easily end all life as we know it on the planet, a solar panel cannot. Makes sense. While you're enlightening yourself and stopping the spew of garbage, go look at exactly what happened in chenobyl, the public was mislead about the level of safety precautions being taken, the state of the equipment, or the aptititude of the people operating it.

And you're going 'But that was Russia' Well guess what, Russians are also human, and so we are. Just because we have better bullshit or have been lucky we haven't had a huge disaster doesn't mean we're just better.

You're right though, anything that can kill me new or old will likely be something I might 'complain' about. Seriously? What is wrong with you? "Oh complaining about substances which can annihilate life on this world and make people die in horrible horrible ways which has repeatidly happened, you're just a complainer'

Comment Re:Renewable versus fossil - where is nuclear? (Score 0) 292

Talking about managing it better sounds good but we still don't have public information tell us how much previous mistakes have affected our world. E.G Japan. Chernobyl.

Odd massive warm section off the coast, wonder what caused that? And the radioactive water dropped into the ocean? We may have long term affects on our food chain that we're not yet aware of.

It's a risk. Other renewable energy sources might be a better choice because it can be distributed power. Everyone can invest in their own power if it becomes efficient and cheap enough, it's almost there and is there for a lot of people already.

It's better than investing all our resources into a single power distributor, which if there are problems, we all have problems.

Comment Neat (Score 1) 119

I can use it as the only way to get into my secret island fortress?

Emergencies could potential use them, but smaller and lighter for a single person, or it needs to be able to carry at least a second passenger, so you're looking at 300-500 lbs carry weight to be truly useful. Then in hard to reach places, they can actually bring someone down.

It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.