Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment None of the above (Score 1) 349

The worst fallout is that this encourages vigilante hackers to go after sites they don't like using methods that are themselves not legal. Based on what I have read about Ashley Madison on wikipedia, I have no respect for the scamming bastards who set up that site. However, two wrongs do not make a right. There were better ways to take down this site.

Comment Re:Veterans care (Score 1) 7

Anybody who ever served on active duty and handled classified information is just a bit hacked off at Her Majesty's cavalier attitude about, well, everything.

Have you any way to show that she was indeed "cavalier" about classified information? I haven't seen anything demonstrating that she really allowed classified information to pass through her private server. I don't dispute that it was overall a bone-headed thing to do, but I haven't seen any evidence that anything improper passed through there. The rest of your statement is based upon that rather large assumption.

Comment Take your Whine and start a new award (Score 3, Insightful) 1010

If the shoe were on the other foot, the rally cry would be for the liberals to go establish their own award and awards process. Why can't the conservatives do the same? Yeah, we know that slashdot has catered to the right for some time (note the breitbart link in the summary as yet another of thousands of front-page examples here) but really the hypocrisy here is rather extreme.

Comment Re:Let's see if I discern your meta-gag correctly (Score 1) 69

You are proposing a new "fallacy" that is specifically an attack on people of only a specific political persuasion. It cannot be non-partisan when it is drawn up to be specifically partisan. That is no different from you pretending to be a non-partisan observer when you call President Lawnchair a Communist.

You actually committed a fallacy (arguably more than one) yourself in setting up this silly new fallacy. I'll let you read the web site to see if you can find it.

Comment Whoosh (Score 1) 69

You seem to have missed the fact that the "your logical fallacy is" site is not partisan. It does not exist explicitly for people of one political persuasion to pick on members of another. The "fallacy" you propose is a deliberate attack on people of a particular political persuasion that you don't agree with. If you don't agree with me, then kindly provide a way that it could be used in response to a claim from a member of the GOP, Tea Party, or a Ron Paullower.

But go ahead, I won't stop you from trying to redefine "fallacy" in such a way as to be a weapon only available to conservatives.

Comment Re:If only I could convince the manufacturers ... (Score 2) 80

That isn't as useful as removing, it though. It is still there, taking up space. I have an older LG android phone (4.0.x) that has only 2GB of internal storage, so every last MB is precious.

Nope, doesn't take up any space that would be usable to you. In Android the system is split in to separate partitions for the system applications and user applications. Even if you could delete something from the system partition it will not make additional usable space in the user partition.

Regardless, that is system space from the total that is dedicated to an app that I don't want and don't use. If they had set it up without that app, the partitioning could have allocated that space to the user space instead. There do exist android phones that do not have the facebook app installed, which suggests that the owners of those phones can install the app into user space.

Comment Re:If only I could convince the manufacturers ... (Score 1) 80

Assuming your phone is on 4.0 or above (which it likely is; less than 8% of devices are on older versions), you can go into Settings -> Apps -> Facebook and disable the app. That will prevent the update requests. It won't actually remove the app because it's installed on a read-only file system, but it will get it out of your face.

That isn't as useful as removing, it though. It is still there, taking up space. I have an older LG android phone (4.0.x) that has only 2GB of internal storage, so every last MB is precious. Hence it is rather frustrating that the manufacturer decided I needed this app on my phone even though I have never used it.

And yes, I know, 4.0.x is ancient. I might as well be posting this in the windows 95 thread. Some people don't enjoy upgrading their phones frequently, though. And oddly enough my phone still makes phone calls.

Comment Re:How about you just reduce my fucking copays? (Score 1) 311

If you want to play semantics and claim that insurance should not cover routine visits or preventive care, that's fine. In that case, we need to rename health insurance and rename the health insurance industry with it because that is what they make the vast majority of their money off of. The fact of the matter is I buy health insurance so that I can have regular visits to my doctors and at the same time the insurance industry keeps raising the costs of that to discourage me from having these visits.

Comment If only I could convince the manufacturers ... (Score 5, Insightful) 80

I wish I could convince the phone manufacturers that I don't need the facebook app. I don't have a facebook account and have no use for the app, yet my phone will not let me uninstall it. In fact my phone keeps telling me that I need to update this large app that I never use.

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

Working...