Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:A free search engine (Score 1) 144

And when I say socialism, I'm not talking about welfare, I'm talking about a form of economy where the government owns the means of production and at the end of the day doesn't give a shit about its customers because it has no competitors...which is no different at all from a monopoly.

Actually it is different. In theory, the government answers to the people, and the people have the ability to change the government through elections (of course in this country they don't work too well in most places, thanks to our crappy first-past-the-post voting system, though some localities actually have other voting systems which work better). With a corporate monopoly, there is no such ability, since the citizens have no power over the corporation, except perhaps through laws (which don't work well because the kind of laws affecting such corporations are mostly state- or federal-level, not local-level, so unless the monopoly affects the whole state or country the voters won't have much power to change things).

Anyway, you don't sound much like modern liberatarians, who basically just want a government that has a totally hands-off approach to corporations and doesn't do much except run the military.

Comment Re: this has nothing to dow ith the tech industry (Score 1) 118

This isn't "redistricting" per se, it's redrawing state boundaries to better serve the voters.

How you draw political boundaries is always going to affect the vote; there's no way around it. The alternative is to never draw any political boundaries at all, which means not having any kind of government, which is of course throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Or you can just leave everything the way it is, which means you can never fix anything or improve it. Why do you think that whoever drew those boundaries decades or centuries ago got them perfectly right the first time, and that they never need adjusting to account for change?

Comment Re:After the Mozilla fiasco, they will be careful (Score 1) 118

Are you going to stone your children when they misbehave? It says you must do that in the Bible.

Lots of animals are homosexual.

Of course, I'm responding to a religious nut, so any arguments referencing reality are useless, since you're insane and don't believe in reality.

Comment Re: Trading one set of problems for another (Score 1) 702

What are you talking about? Lots of people in Chandler, Gilbert, and Tempe probably make about that much and live in more normal-sized houses. North Phoenix isn't bad either, nor is Ahwatukee. No, you really don't want to live in a $50k house in South Phoenix (north of South Mountain) or on the west side.

Comment Re:Epix was one reason they were forced to stream. (Score 1) 220

Arizona's not *that* red. It wasn't that long ago they elected Janet Napolitano (D) as governor, before Obama got her to take over as DHS head. Tempe's a pretty blue city too, as is Tucson.

Now Utah is about as red is it gets, I think. Along with Mississippi, Alabama, etc.

Comment Re:Epix was one reason they were forced to stream. (Score 2) 220

He is confusing terms a bit here, but the previous poster was calling him a leftist. A true leftist does not favor corporations having the kind of power or influence that he describes, that's a hallmark of the right wing, so it's reasonable for him to call them Republicans, which is a far-right party. Yes, in most areas the Democrats are also center-right, but that party does claim to answer to the people on the left, even if it is just lip service.

Comment Re:Epix was one reason they were forced to stream. (Score 1) 220

If the landowners are absentee and living in China, what happens when you stop paying rent? Don't the landlords need to actually apply to the local court to start eviction proceedings? If they have some local agent to do that, why can't the local agent approve broadband installation?

Comment Re:F that (Score 1) 702

Cat hair is 100 times worse than dog hair....yeah the lab I have sheds more but the crappy roomba does a decent job of keeping up and it isn't that super fine shit that gets all over everything.

Cat hair? What cat hair? Come to think of it, I had a cat when I was a teenager that shed a lot, but my current cats don't. Some are a lot worse than others; a Persian would be a PITA for that reason, but my current American shorthairs don't shed much at all, I don't even notice it. You can brush them occasionally with a wire brush that pulls out the loose hair if it's a problem.

it isn't a chore like trying to wash a cat.

Luckily, I haven't had to do that very much. And some cats are much worse than others with this. Some of them just sit there and look really annoyed and unhappy, others go wild and tear you to shreds. I think part of it is doing it once in a while so they're used to it (and wearing heavy gloves, and trimming the claws beforehand). With my current two cats, one is a bit of a problem, while the other is pretty cool.

Plus I'd like to see a cat jump a pheasant or grouse, or retrieve a duck from the water.

Why would I care about that? I think I'd care about that about as much as watching a tractor pull. Besides, cats are predators, and most predators avoid any kind of prey which is too close their own body mass. Cats are relatively small, so they go after animals the size of a rat, at the very largest, and usually things like mice and small lizards. A duck is about as large as a cat. A Yorkie or Chihuahua probably isn't going to be much help with ducks either.

the main "yard" is just over an acre and fenced in)

That makes a big, big difference I think (plus your dog-door in the garage). Most big-dog owners I see have little or no yard. That seems like a terrible environment for a large dog.

And WTF are you feeding a dog at $100/month

Ok, maybe $100 was an exaggeration, but a friend of a friend who has Cane Corsos told me it was $50/month per dog for his. Granted, these are very large dogs, but that's what I'm talking about here--big dogs, not all dogs averaged together (including Chihuahuas).

get the fucker to stop walking on the cars.

Not a problem with indoor cats.

lol captcha: minority
I wonder which one of us it was targeting ;-)

I'm not sure, but I think it was me. It might be geographically-based though, but I really wonder; when I lived next to NYC and visited a lot, I sure saw a lot of people with dogs at the dog park. I can't imagine how that can be a decent environment for a dog to live in unless it's Chihuahua-sized. Now, all the women I see on OKCupid (including ones in DC, not too far from where I live) seem to have big dogs. Whatever happened to that stereotype about women liking cats more? That's directly contrary to my observations.

Comment Re:Their work is being wasted. (Score 1) 135

Unfortunately, this "choice" you talk about is something that frequently doesn't exist.

I use Win7, Win8.1, IE, and Gnome3 all the time. I hate them all (Win7 the least). I wish I could change to KDE instead of Gnome3, or Cinnamon, or anything else really. But I can't, I don't get to choose my Linux desktop at work. Same with Windows and IE. I'm not allowed to use anything besides IE10 for web browsing, and it's horrible (especially because so many sites are completely broken on it). I'd love to change to Firefox, but that's not allowed. Luckily I don't have to use the Win8.1 computer very often, that one really makes me want to pull my hair out. Holy shit, that thing is horrible. And for the people saying "you just need to install [3rd party software] on it", that's not allowed.

At home, I don't have any of these problems. I use Linux Mint with KDE and Firefox, and I'm happy. If Mint goes down the tubes for some reason and I get sick of it, I can change to something else at will, perhaps Arch. I can't do that at work.

Comment Re:Their work is being wasted. (Score 1) 135

Then we have the desktop environments. KDE isn't too bad, and there are some lightweight alternatives that a quasi-usable. But the former star of the Linux desktop environments, GNOME, has pretty much destroyed itself with its GNOME 3 effort. This is one of the most stunning failures ever seen when developing software. The user experience has been ruined in a way that many thought would not be possible. Yet it has happened.

See, this illustrates a big problem. I guess it's a problem with human nature, I'm not sure exactly, but it's a big problem somewhere.

You point out a big problem (and I agree, Gnome3 is a big problem; it sucks. The user experience is awful, just as you say). Then you even mention a solution: KDE. KDE isn't perfect, but it isn't too bad, just like you say. Personally, I like it, at least better than anything else I've ever used. I wish they hadn't wasted so much effort on that "semantic desktop" crap with Nepomuk etc., but otherwise it works well and lets me configure it to my heart's delight. It's reasonably fast on my older hardware and does everything I need to do. I constantly read people complaining about some mis-feature or missing feature in Gnome3, and that thing is always not a problem in KDE, either because it's easily configurable (without having to download some extension) or just isn't architected that way.

But for some reason, no one wants to switch to KDE. They just gripe about Gnome3. And many of the larger distros keep pushing Gnome3 for some odd reason (Fedora and RHEL are the most notable examples, but Debian pushes it now too). It's utterly baffling. I thought Linux was supposed to be all about giving users choice and being hacker-friendly. Gnome3 is the opposite of that; it's made with the same philosophy behind the MacOSX UI. Heck, I think even Macs are more configurable than Gnome3.

and even ads have been injected into the browsing experience!

Now you'll have to provide a citation for that one. I'm always using whatever the latest FF version in the Mint repos is, and I haven't seen any ads. And it's a lot faster and more memory-efficient than Chromium, which I've also spent plenty of time with. I'm no fan of the new UI, but the only time I really see that is when I click on the configuration button, which isn't often.

Comment Re:billionaire is a hard set of shoes to fill (Score 1) 702

When you are a billionaire, you are not free to do whatever you want to. You cannot travel freely, you need an armed security detail EVERYWHERE you go.

No, you don't. That's ridiculous. Yes, if you're a billionaire in some shithole in Central America that would be correct, but you certainly don't need to worry about that kind of thing in western Europe. There's lots of billionaires these days; they don't all have armed guards. Most people wouldn't know most billionaires if they saw them on the street. A few famous ones like Donald Trump and Bill Gates, sure, but most regular people wouldn't know Elon Musk if they saw him at the mall (and even he's famous in tech circles).

"Don't try to outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal." - Zaphod Beeblebrox in "Hithiker's Guide to the Galaxy"