Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:why (Score 0) 720

by cas2000 (#48545079) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Can a Felon Work In IT?

do you want a permanent underclass of people who have no *legal* way of making a living? when the only options people have are violent crime or starving to death, then they're not going to just give up and die for the convenience of a society that offers them nothing. only an idiot or an american - but i repeat myself - would think that is a good thing.

OTOH if they are given a chance to become part of normal society then all but a handful of the seriously fucked up and psychopaths (most of whom will shortly be back in jail) will settle down into relatively peaceful, normal lives.

the fact that the law permits such discrimination is the problem - as i said, except for some very obvious exceptions that ought to be as illegal as discrimination based on colour of skin or sexual orientation.

btw, you can shove your obvious over-compensation for your inferiority complex up your arse - the notion of american superiority is laughable. you've got more guns and more violent crime than anywhere else but you're trailing the world in pretty much everything else. i wouldn't even want to visit your fucked up fascist police state of a country, let alone live in it.

Comment: why (Score 3, Interesting) 720

by cas2000 (#48544371) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Can a Felon Work In IT?

why are americans such judgemental pricks?

when you've done your time, you've done your time. that should be the end of it and, aside from some very limited cases like not letting pedos work with kids, discrimination against former criminals should be illegal....even a fuckwit yank should be able to figure out that if ex-crims can't get jobs and have no choice but crime to support themselves then that's what they'll do.

Comment: Re: here we go (Score 1) 834

by cas2000 (#48363487) Attached to: How To End Online Harassment

Shit that gets said on the internet, even "fighting words," is about the least threatening form of hostile human interaction possible. As soon as it crosses into the physical world, it becomes a different thing entirely.

actually, no. there's no way of telling whether someone making death threats on the internet is just a moronic blowhard like yourself or a lunatic stalker who can and will carry out those threats.

they may be making absurdist threats like "rip off their head and skull-fuck them" but it's impossible to tell whether they're just a teenage fuckwit over-compensating for having only a tiny penis or if they're seriously deranged and dangerous.

because of that inability to distinguish, threats of violence on the internet have to be taken seriously - and the overall effect is intimidation, which inherently crosses over into the physical world.

Comment: Re:It's been 5 days since I last received a threat (Score 1) 716

by cas2000 (#48337805) Attached to: Bounties vs. Extreme Internet Harassment

that is complete bullshit.

i've watched most of her videos, and there's nothing in them that is in the least bit controversial - it's all blatantly obvious stuff that she's pointing out.

the misogyny in many video games is as obvious as the misogyny in american TV shows - and it comes from the same source: american culture is fucked up and misogynystic.

Comment: Re:'Regardless of... income and education level' ? (Score 1) 422

by cas2000 (#48183899) Attached to: Soda Pop Damages Your Cells' Telomeres

I wrote "spoilt" and i meant "spoilt'.

            adj 1: having the character or disposition harmed by pampering
                          or oversolicitous attention; "a spoiled child" [syn: {spoiled}, {spoilt}]

if you're going to be a spelling nazi, at least get a fucking clue first.

and WTF is this "Juan" shit? is that some lame attempt at a coded racist slur, implying i'm mexican or spanish or something? i don't even live in the police-state shithole known as the USA, i live in australia - mexicans are extremely rare here.

Comment: Re:'Regardless of... income and education level' ? (Score 2, Insightful) 422

by cas2000 (#48182133) Attached to: Soda Pop Damages Your Cells' Telomeres

spoilt white boys often have a huge chip on their shoulder and are obsessed with denying their priviledge. it's why they make absurd strawmen and rant about them at any opportunity, regardless of whether it's relevant in context or not.

i.e. "white boys burden".

this particular spoilt white boy seems to be suffering from the idiotic meme that white males are really the oppressed victims in modern society.

Comment: Re:Stay out of our business then..... (Score 1) 993

by cas2000 (#48078385) Attached to: Lennart Poettering: Open Source Community "Quite a Sick Place To Be In"

And why did RedHat "choose" systemd? Because they had very little choice... udev has been eaten by it, and GNOME requires it.

No, it's exactly the opposite. RedHat owns systemd and gnome and udev. udev was merged into systemd and gnome depends on systemd because RH wants to own linux.

Why is everyone else joining them?

because they want to use udev and gnome and have little or no choice.

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 1) 385

by cas2000 (#47941261) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

one major problem with that is that you can't replace any of those 3-15 "modules" with something better (or just different) without replacing ALL of them.

this has an enormous chilling effect on innovation - the only improvements or changes permitted in any of those 3-15+ modules are those that are accepted by the systemd gatekeepers, who are not known for their acceptance of other people's ideas or code.

if systemd stuck to just being an init replacment, most people wouldn't have a problem with it. it's the fact that it's borging all sorts of other daemons that is the problem.

Comment: Re:English usage (Score 1) 97

by cas2000 (#47838433) Attached to: Dirty Diapers Used To Grow Mushrooms

your sexist rant against singular "they" might have some validity if it wasn't for the fact that "they" has been used as a singular pronoun for at least 400 years (i.e. since approximately the beginning of modern english) and the fact that there are numerous nouns in the english language which can also be used as either singular or plural - "bacon" for example. it's not unusual.

in other words when using singular "they", the pronoun and antecedent *DO* match in number. No amount of ranting will change that fact.

A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequilla. -- Mitch Ratcliffe