Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment In short (Score 2) 74

...the IoT is a generally stupid idea, for all the hundreds of reasons that have been repeated here ad infinitum: additional points of failure in systems that benefit very little or not at all from the 'features' added by the new connectivity.

Comment Re:LOL (Score 1) 494

Actually, you miss my point entirely.

Personally, I think the best response for such language would be for Siri or Cortana to simply reply with "that sort of language really turns me off" and then power down (maybe wait for the 3rd example). It's a relatively gentle chiding, and enough of an inconvenience that people would avoid it. And it would kind of be funny.

I have no problem with these systems discouraging uncivil behavior or language. No problem there.

What I have a problem with is the sense of aggrievement now spreading to inanimate objects. It's a memetic cancer.
Personally I don't believe that a society can long function if one has to filter ones' comments (and let's be honest, THOUGHTS is the real intent) for every person's conceivable sensitivities. Offense is personal; you cannot insult me if I don't care what you say. Far more sustainable to grow a reasonably thick skin and live your life without looking for opportunities to claim victim status.
Expanding the "hurt feelings" franchise to machinery is frankly ridiculous.

Comment Fuck you, protesters (Score 0) 271


- fuck you and your ridiculous stone age religious sympathies. (BTW I'd say the same thing to Christians if they prevented building a telescope on a Chilean mountain because "Jesus' spirit lives here")
- fuck you and your revisionist history; if Hawaii was still its own country, you'd have your own 1%ers that would instead own that land, the normal people STILL wouldn't be allowed there, and the astronomers could build their telescope there simply by paying someone a hefty bribe with probably 10% the complications
- fuck you generally.

Comment Freedom of Speech is the key. (Score 4, Insightful) 667

As Martin NiemÃller sagely said:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

Political correctness* stems from a perfectly reasonable idea: be nice to other people.

But as the Founding Fathers wisely intuited 240 years ago, to INSIST on that itself is at root a sort of social tyranny, which indeed then opens the slippery-slope question "according to whom?"

A multicultural society CANNOT function in which everyone has to constantly try to anticipate everyone else's triggers.

The only reasonable solution is a general promotion of freedom of speech and internalizing the idea that offense is self-created. This isn't to say people shouldn't be offended; in my view much of the progress of humanity has stemmed from people being offended at something or another. They certainly have the right to their offense. But when this offense fuels actions that are then designed to constrain other peoples' right to their own freedom of speech - there a line is crossed, and the corrosion of free speech begins.

(And for the pedants, yes, I'm aware that the Constitutional provision about free speech only applies to the behavior of the Federal government; I'm speaking more broadly in terms of cultural values.)

*the real comedy is that there are still people who ardently insist there IS "no such thing" (

Comment Irrelevant (Score 1) 198 Scotland isn't a country.

It's as meaningful as insisting a plane overflew "Iowan" airspace.

It may have overflown UK airspace, and I'd suspect that the UK was cool with it (whether they knew what it was doing or not, as I'm guessing US/UK flights don't necessarily engender too much scrutiny).

Comment Re:Hey, anybody that can... (Score 1) 634

She did. And....she won the equivalent to 6 of 6. Somehow.


"The disclosure that Hillary Rodham Clinton parlayed $1,000 into nearly $100,000 through highly speculative commodities trading may create political embarrassment for the Clintons, who have sharply criticized a national culture of greed during the Reagan and Bush years in the White House."

Comment Re:Slashdot: News for Haters (Score 1) 405

tl;dr version: We waste shitloads of money on all sorts of things, why not waste it on this?

(Which is a pretty weak justification for massive spending of public money...)

I think the reasons the /. posters are frothing so much about this is in direct relation to how FUNDAMENTALLY stupid it is, and this is a technically oriented crowd that reacts viscerally to technical ignorance: you know, like make a public roadway surface of GLASS (with all of it's obvious shortcomings*), expecting that glass to remain light-transmissive despite the use by millions of cars (tires carry things like, you know, stones?), etc.

1) strength, obviously. Trucks weigh upwards of 50t. Add the compressive forces of braking, etc...yikes.
2) fragility to temperature: one of the reasons asphalt is so widely used is that it's FLEXIBLE at a wide range of temperatures, resisting cracking. Glass is notoriously bad at this - as you can see pouring hot liquid into a glass that's at 0 c..
3) repair costs: (also related to #2) - asphalt is used as a patcher because it's super cheap.
4) friction is pretty important to a road surface, particularly wet friction. While a glass surface can certainly be 'rough textured' this would directly impede its ability to transmit light for the solar power function.

Comment Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score 3, Interesting) 831

Sure they are.

The real answer to the (stupid) OP question is economics. As much as liberals like to assume that they are the 'mainstream' the fact is that the country is much closer to 50/50.
Twitter, not stupid, recognizes this.

If they silence Trump (again, as you say, for whatever reason they want because they're private) a few things happen:
1) they lose half their customer base; I strongly suspect that this really wouldn't matter economically because a) they make no $ and b) I'm guessing that 99.9% of Trump voters don't 'tweet' as a lifestyle-communication thing; and
2) he gets a bully pulpit and even more press as it 'looks' like the establishment is trying to censor him; and
3) suddenly Twitter would be seen to be taking sides. For a purported neutral third party carrier of messages, they would be taking the stance that they ARE now responsible for the messages they carry - that would impose HUGE liability on them, not to mention opening a massive can of worms in terms of potential litigation regarding their common-carrier stance.

Slashdot Top Deals

Business will be either better or worse. -- Calvin Coolidge