Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:God forbid the law applies to elections (Score 1) 1082 1082

Don't forget that the ballot itself was illegal. The election rules were to have a simple ballot where each row of punch holes corresponds to a page of candidates.

Oddly enough for the election of the governor's brother, the ballot was coincidentally changed to a butterfly page where they alternated candidates on the two pages. On this ballot, the governor's brother somehow managed to be first, then lets have the most likely threat be third hole, but second on the page, so any confusion between second and third goes to a fringe candidate who happened to be on the other page of the (again, illegal) butterfly ballot. All this is theoretical right? I mean people wouldn't make those mistakes? Hmm, Pat Buchanan was the second punch hole, but what you may have punched if you wanted Gore. Buchanan somehow managed strong support in heavily Jewish districts, even though he is thought by many to be anti-semitic.

So, the design was the one most likely to siphon votes from the Democrat and give the state to his brother. This is never mentioned when they talk about 2000, and I never heard it mentioned at all in the Supreme Court decision. So Scalia not only didn't care about the 9 lawyers deciding the Presidency, he didn't care about the effect an illegal ballot to help the governor's brother had on democracy either.

BTW1: autocorrect corrected Scalia to scaliness. Somewhat appropriate,
BTW2: Nobody has mentioned about JEBush on one hand swearing to uphold the laws of his state, and on the other hand allowing to exist an illegal ballot to help his brother to win his state.

Comment: What if a drone starts to actively harm? (Score 1, Interesting) 175 175

My odd little brain has been thinking what if there's a drone that attacks you terminator style? How would the find who the drone owner is?

We've seen software bots go out and get illegal stuff, what if we have a hardware bot doing the same? Hmm, the tool to make a harmful autonomous bot are out there; regulation won't help much at this stage.

Comment: Re:I wonder... (Score 1) 277 277

I'd add a small caveat that these are 3 reasons why Windows people get upgrades. I have a Mac, and I upgrade it all the time, mostly to get the security updates. I wait a couple weeks for the big nasty bugs to get settled, then I update my machines.

My wife, not technical at all, bitches that she needs to close her tabs in Chrome, that's about the impact she sees. I updated her mom's laptop, VERY tech-phobic, was upgraded two major releases (Lion to Mavericks, skipping Mountain Lion completely) and the biggest impact for her was that her desktop pic changed. Imagine how much impact there were for most people going from 7 => 8. Im sure there were people bitching about a bit more than desktop backgrounds.

Not perfect, but Apple seems to have the upgrade thing pretty smooth by this point. Windows is trying to go from the "big impact to bottom line, Windows 95 gets us people waiting in line at stores" to something more even.

Comment: Re:$10? SO MUCH FOR BEING LIBRE! FALSE ADVERTISING (Score 1) 132 132

I do realize you just forgot the Sarcasm tag here... but in The Freaking Article it says there are two versions. A free one, tagged Vanilla, and the $10 Collabora one has support.

Besides that, Libre is more Free as in Speech than Free as in Beer.

Comment: Re:Employees think the POS is their personal compu (Score 1) 85 85

On Another Site, someone asked (relatively recently) how to run a web browser on windows 3.1... on industrial computer controlling a bandsaw. At this point, Win 3.1 and any IE that could run on it would be not updateable. So let's allow our bandsaw controller to be pwn3d.

People do stupid things.

Comment: Re:I wonder why... (Score 1) 289 289


I agree with everything you say, as far as justification for why it was a (Confederate) Federal Statute but nobody argued "states rights unless it crumbles under the weight of traveling state to state, then States Rights is really a synonym for Federal in some cases". We already had the "we respect property rights if you cross state borders", witness the Dredd Scott decision.

States Rights is still just as hollow of a phrase, used to justify whatever we feel like doing today.

Comment: Re:I wonder why... (Score 2) 289 289

Though this may be a bit Godwin's laws ish....

Remember that State's Rights were used as a justification for secession.

But, in the Confederate Constitution, it pretty much was a copy of the US Constitution.... three exceptions. 1) anything based on age was of course reclocked to start of Confederacy. 2) anything based on number of states was reset to number of Confederate states 3) you HAD to allow slavery. No choice.

So, the US Constitution allowed various slavery modes (not that this was good, but we're arguing something else), but the Confederacy didn't allow the state that right. "State's Rights" south had less rights for the state. States Rights is basically an excuse for "do what I want at any given time" rather than follow any actual ruleset. In this context the inconsistency above hypocrisy fits.

Comment: Re:More than money (Score 1) 214 214

Another thing is residuals I dont think they get a backnd A show can go to syndication profitably after 100 episodes or so. The Simpsons have over 500 shows

think of this in context of: 1) the shit-ton of money FX paid for syndication, and no voice actor gets a penny, and 2) the shit-ton of money handed over for Seinfeld.

Shearer probably has more money than he needs, but his contract still may be "unfair" in that hes not getting a percentage where many other people are.

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?