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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Probably a more useful metric than social networks (Score 3, Insightful) 67

by damn_registrars (#49804897) Attached to: Google Chrome Tops 1 Billion Users
While there are certainly people who are running chrome on different unlinked devices, this measurement is probably still a lot more meaningful than when facebook says it has 12 billion users. Similarly, I'm not sure how meaningful the measurement of 900 million gmail accounts is; I have more than one myself.

Comment: That is not how to fix the pollbooth (Score 1) 238

by damn_registrars (#49788263) Attached to: In a 5-star rating scheme, the new Mad Max film ...
I'm not aware of anyone else who has had this problem but I haven't seen the pollbooth on the front page for a couple years now. When I'm logged in, I don't see it. If I'm in a new browser (and hence not logged in yet) I see it - but then it goes away when I log in. My settings are configured to show it and yet it never shows.

Now after having not seen the pollbooth for some time I see an irrelevant poll on the front page, posing as a story. WTF? I care about as much about the new Mad Max film as I do the color of Taco's socks. Is it good bad, or somewhere in between? I don't care.

Comment: Re:I'd be interested in seeing the starting list (Score 1) 26

by damn_registrars (#49782791) Attached to: Survey - George W. Bush more evil than Stalin, Mao, Lenin
Some would say that I am literally (though I would argue more for figuratively) playing the devil's advocate here, but it has been pointed out before that no conclusive evidence was ever found to link Hitler to the Holocaust. Granted, it is hard to explain how it could have happened without him knowing it - and the Nazis are synonymous with ardent record keeping so it seems unlikely that they would have accidentally lost such critical information - but the worst of what came from Nazi Germany doesn't at this time track back to him.

That said I would still stop far short of calling him "pretty cool" as the previous poster did.

Comment: I'd be interested in seeing the starting list (Score 1) 26

by damn_registrars (#49780057) Attached to: Survey - George W. Bush more evil than Stalin, Mao, Lenin
The article mentions:

Students from 37 countries gave their thoughts on 40 figures and significant events in world history.

But it doesn't seem to mention who was on the list, or who compiled it, or anything else meaningful about it. It would really help with figuring out how these results came to be. In particular I can think of two more Vlads who i would expect to see in the top 10 list of villains, amongst others.

Another glaring omission is Dick Cheney. This suggests that we are still a ways away from correcting the history books to show that indeed most of the terrible decisions attributed to the incompetent Bush were just the result of executing directives handed down from the man who was - in name only - his subordinate. Plenty of people in this country are aware of the disproportionate amount of power that Cheney wielded from 2001 through 2009, however it seems that abroad still very few are.

Comment: Re:Go for it (Score 1) 26

by damn_registrars (#49780011) Attached to: Survey - George W. Bush more evil than Stalin, Mao, Lenin
While you are generally quick to defend Bush - and probably steaming over the fact that Obama is not on the top 10 - it would be interesting to see the list (article mentions a list of 40).

However, there is one distinction that Bush has that none of the others on the top 10 have. Only he launched a war against a sovereign nation thousands of miles away while in the position of head of state. Granted, several of the others did not have the technology to do so in their time (Genghis Khan, especially), but he is the only one on the list who did it either way. Others were also not formal heads of state (Khan again, or Bin Laden for a more recent example).

I expect you might want to counter with something along the lines of how Bush believed he was doing the right thing by invading a sovereign nation thousands of miles away who posed absolutely no credible threat to his own country. To that I will also point to the fact that the others on the list mostly also convinced themselves they were doing the right thing.

Comment: How do you identify when it is fixed? (Score 1) 411

by damn_registrars (#49774501) Attached to: Can Bad Scientific Practice Be Fixed?
Without an agreeable metric for how to declare it to be "fixed", that is an unachievable goal. It is worth noting though that the percentage of bad players in science is no worse than in any other vocation, and indeed lower than many. The difference is just that more media attention goes to unethical science than to drywall installers who cut corners.

Comment: Innocent is a relative term here (Score 1) 149

by damn_registrars (#49764175) Attached to: Al-Qaeda's Job Application Form Revealed
Jihadists believe that the people they are killing are in some way interfering with their goals. They generally believe that the land they are fighting in is rightfully theirs, so they see the killing of "infidels" as a righteous cause. It just so happens that the people they are killing are better skilled at selling their own cause to the media that reports the killings.

Comment: Re:So, that's how it works? (Score 1) 10

by damn_registrars (#49758343) Attached to: The Kevlar Kandidate Prepares to Surprise Nobody
As I've said before, when I get to vote, I have to choose between a candidate who doesn't really fit my beliefs and one who wants to destroy my ability to make a living. Voting for a nonviable candidate in a close race is effectively giving a vote to the candidate who wants me unemployed.

But I've told you that before. So go ahead, tell me how it means something completely different from what I have told you it to mean.

Comment: Re:So, that's how it works? (Score 1) 10

by damn_registrars (#49756621) Attached to: The Kevlar Kandidate Prepares to Surprise Nobody

Unfortunately Bernie can't raise enough money to be taken seriously by those who have the power to select a candidate...

It's the voters who select their candidates, or allow them to be selected by someone else. It's all very simple.

And when was the last time that there was a president who wasn't from one of the two parties we have today? When was the last time that either house of congress had a significant number of members who were not from either of the two parties?

And the game is rigged within the two parties, as well. We have seen before that most of the candidates - specifically any that vary from the party platform - are systematically eliminated from contention well before most voters have a chance to make their interests known in the primaries and caucuses.

We've also already seen that Bernie has committed to only running as a Democrat. Once he is eliminated - which will probably happen at most two weeks after Iowa - we won't see him again as a presidential candidate.

So no, the voters do not select their candidates. At least, not for president. We've seen that some people are interested in re-separating the voters from the senators as well, which is a related matter.

The question of whether computers can think is just like the question of whether submarines can swim. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra

Working...