Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Gawd, I love that man (Score 1) 81

by mcgrew (#48634665) Attached to: Dick "Smitty" Cheney

Your experience was much different than mine. I was in college when Carter was President, and he stopped food stamp benefits for poor college kids. I often went hungry. I'd voted for him, voted against his reelection.

Under Reagan I worked for Disney. Reagan slashed the capital gains tax, which unleashed an orgy of hostile corporate takeovers, one of which was unleashed on my employer, who took a big financial hit from its defense and cut everyone's hours. I had trouble paying my bills for a while. There were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these hostile takeovers and takeover attempts. Of course, a recession followed this but none of the pundits connected the dots and they treated Reagan like a demigod.

We moved back to Illinois when Leila was born, and it took well over a year to find a job. Thanks for the recession, Ronnie.

I got a job finally, in 1987, but half the people I knew were looking for work until the nineties. That was Reagan's fault, but Bush did nothing to alleviate the situation.

There was something about Clinton I just didn't like; he came across as a sleaze and I think I voted Libertarian that election, I don't really remember, but it wasn't a vote for Clinton.

I was wrong about him; he put 100,000 new cops on the street, and my crime-ridden neighborhood got a neighborhood cop and crime plummeted. He signed PWORA which ended generational welfare. I voted for his reelection.

As to Bush II, can you name a single positive thing he accomplished? I can't.

As to Obama, my opinion of his mediocre President went up a little when he started opening Cuba; it's long overdue. We've had relations with China and Russia for years, it should have happened when the Berlin Wall came down and the USSR split up.

Comment: Re: Who? (Score 1) 480

by jedidiah (#48634131) Attached to: FBI Confirms Open Investigation Into Gamergate

Unless you've ever interacted with the cops you really have no reason to say anything about anything. Many people have this romantic idealized notion of the cops (or FBI) giving a f*ck when they usually do not.

One troll threatening another on the Internet is probably not enough to get them interested.

These people have important things to do and they have their careers to think about. They aren't going to waste their time chasing their tails over every random piece of bullsh*t. Sorry, but YOU and your problem are probably not important enough for them.

A threat against a school is probably something that they are more interested in. Better collar. More interesting media potential.

Comment: Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... (Score 1) 574

by PopeRatzo (#48634045) Attached to: Top Five Theaters Won't Show "The Interview" Sony Cancels Release

As do members of unions and members of activist groups. Using your logic these groups of individuals should also be silenced.

I agree. No additional rights because you have pooled your money.

As the court has said, a group of people have the same speech rights as individual persons. There are no additional rights, just the same right.

Except, corporations are allowed to participate in elections to an extent and in ways that private citizens cannot.

Using your logic employees may have even more rights than shareholders. In your logic shareholders may have two voices, individual and corporate; while employees may have three voices, individual, corporate and union. Again I am referring to a situation such as "a steel corporation wanting the government to maintain a tariff on steel imports". The steel workers union would probably want the government to maintain the tariff too.

Right. Everybody gets the same vote. Everybody gets the same campaign finance limit (and citizens only). That's simple. Corporations, unions, etc are not citizens. They cannot vote or run for office. Why should they be allowed to participate in politics financially?

And if it was all about "rights" why has Citizens United allowed corporate donors anonymity in political finance when individuals are not allowed to be anonymous in the same way?

You make the mistake of thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal. You have an image living in your head that is not real.

Comment: Re:Media blackout (Score 1) 480

by jedidiah (#48633985) Attached to: FBI Confirms Open Investigation Into Gamergate

The "corruption" angle of this is far more pervasive than just games or game reviews. It was an interesting coincidence that a Jewish reporter in Israel was complaining about media corruption from a different angle when this story was being broken.

Her perspective was that inconvenient facts and stories are not published. Things that don't support the dogma that your editors want to push are suppressed. Reality doesn't matter. The media wants to push it's view of things and "the news" is really just a work of fiction. Anything that doesn't support the narrative they want to present is ignored.

I'm not sure if it's shared ideology driven by the state of journalism academia or if it's mainly more crass corporate considerations but there's a definite group think at work.

Professional journalism at this point can be at best described as a form of political propaganda.

Comment: Re:Most Unbiased Slashdot Gamergate Article (Score 3, Insightful) 480

by jedidiah (#48633895) Attached to: FBI Confirms Open Investigation Into Gamergate

If you troll all of your customers, don't be surprised if you end up with a few wing nuts going off the deep end.

The "journalism" response to this entire affair has been shameless pandering to some notion of political correctness and shameless exploitation of the situation. That's been true pretty much across the entire media spectrum starting with the very first set of trolling click-bait articles generated by the gaming and tech press.

Anyone that disagrees is branded as some sort of anti-feminist misogynistic scum who's opinions don't matter.

It's a perfect example of the "liberal media" that tea baggers like to whine about. The dogma behind the narrative is more important than anything else.

Comment: Re:Who? (Score 2, Insightful) 480

by jedidiah (#48633801) Attached to: FBI Confirms Open Investigation Into Gamergate

Being a victim requires actual harm. What actual harm does a threat from some chickenshit web troll really do you?

If anything, the so-called victims here are happily basking in the glow of the spotlight happy to be the center of attention.

The real victims are people that have bought into all of this nonsense and have had the view of their own real world warped by it. There's the real psychological harm.

Comment: Re:Supremes never said corps are people ... (Score 1) 574

by PopeRatzo (#48632619) Attached to: Top Five Theaters Won't Show "The Interview" Sony Cancels Release

Those employees and shareholders already have their individual rights. Do you believe that the corporation should confer upon them additional rights? So that people who own stock have rights to certain speech that others do not? Because that's exactly the current situation.

Nossir. Corporate personhood was a legal shorthand that has gone out of control. It will be looked upon by history with embarrassment.

Comment: The "wheel" group is an admin group (Score 4, Informative) 116

by mr_mischief (#48629205) Attached to: Grinch Vulnerability Could Put a Hole In Your Linux Stocking

Truth: some Linux distros have a "wheel" group.
Truth: this group is used as a list of people with elevated permissions
Truth: one of the elevated permissions often assigned to this group is the ability to become root, especially with sudo
Falsehood: all users on a Linux system are members of the "wheel" group
Falsehood: one can add oneself to the "wheel" group without having permissions already elevated above regular user status

tl;dr: someone misunderstands groups and called it a vulnerability

6 Curses = 1 Hexahex