Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Shorter version (Score 4, Insightful) 67

If you save thousands of people from being killed or maimed by measles, polio, malaria, and other diseases in Africa, but you don't bow your head to the left's concerns over patents, then those people you helped don't matter. You must advance the cause. And the cause is about money, not about whether children are crippled by polio or die of measles.

And the experiments to improve education threaten to disrupt the cash flow from teachers' union dues. Stop those too.

Comment Re: Isn't this why computers are great (Score 1) 192

"Journalism" isn't "what reporters do", but narration of the "facts on the ground". Facts in quotes, since shortly after an event, when the news is hot, we rarely know the truth of anything. (Heck, is Obama a Muslim? I think he's more of a Muslim than Bill Clinton was a Christian: that's a religious group he wouldn't mind political support from, isn't going to actively antagonize, and will occasionally give a nod to in a speech.)

Comments sections often call out mistakes in reporting (and it's basically all mistakes, as you'll know if you've ever been involved in something reported, or especially if you've been interviewed), or add details or contrary points of view. That's journalism.

Comment Re: Isn't this why computers are great (Score 1) 192

They have everything to due with free expression, which is ultimately the point of journalism. Given your posting history, I suspect you usually agree with the official narrative the papers generally print instead of the truth, and get upset when people point out that it's all BS, so I can understand your emotional response here. But you should still support free expression, even when you disagree with it.

Comment Re:This is *SO* unethical ! (Score 1) 192

Sadly, EULAs and the like tell them they can do this. Courts have upheld it. Which means taking them at their word is pretty much useless.

What? If the user who wants to participate in online discussions on a private company's web site agrees to a EULA that states that the owner of the web site reserves the right to change the conditions of using the site, then that's exactly what you signed up for. The only "sadly" involved is users sadly not reading what they agree to. Most people in the gimme-dat-free-stuff mindset don't think things through anyway.

Real names policies exist because companies say "what value can I get from selling the fact that SuitWrinkler53 commented on the website?" and deciding that they can't sell that information.

Or, if you're a publisher, those policies exist in order to spare the publishers huge ongoing legal expenses in dealing with inquiries and even subpoenas related to digging out real names or other information about trolling, libelous, or otherwise criminal users.

And then you realize they don't know much about the underlying technology, and are probably using something like WordPress.

No, then we realize that you're talking out of your ass and haven't bothered to so much as view the source on one of their pages in order to see that you're wrong. And that the paper - like so many who can't afford to go about it in any other way - are using a third party SaaS solution. Which means a single code base for many clients, which means no, customizing it for one customer isn't always desirable or even do-able.

They just have to remind you it's technically private property, and that the license says they can change the terms if they wish.

Oh, so you DO get it. What are you bitching about, then?

Comment Re:Because the CIA is evil. (Score 1) 264

The reason why Saddam was under that disposal and inspection regime was *because* of those things

You mean, the things that didn't exist? What are you saying exactly? You're trying to have it both ways.

What Saddam did in the past and was under restrictions for is itself not a valid pretext for invasion.

Sure it is, because he refused to comply with the requirements that arose from everything that went before. And you're STILL pretending that his forces never ceased to target those protecting the no-fly zone, wasn't robbing from UN food and relief funds to buy more weapons, and so on.

Where was the evidence of WMDs? None.

I know, I know, you're trying to wish away the deaths of thousands of people killed with exactly those non-existent WMDs that you simultaneously say were the basis for the inspection regime. I suspect you're don't actually listen to yourself, in order to avoid realizing how silly you sound.

Almost 15 years past we have not found any evidence of hidden/buried caches

Right, just the places where they USED to be, and which were blocked from inspection while he was still in power.

Comment Re:Because the CIA is evil. (Score 0, Troll) 264

Do you mean waterboarding? The very same technique to which thousands of US military people have subjected themselves during routine training? That sort of thing?

And "behind the Irag invasions" ... what? Do you meant the invasion conducted by dozens of allies following Saddam's attempt to take over Kuwait? Or do you mean the follow-up invasion that occurred because Saddam never met any of his obligations following the cease-fire has his invasion was pushed back, and as he continued to fire on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones over the territories occupied by the ethnic minorities he'd been systematically killing with air strikes and WMD's? Silly me, of course you know all of that, and you're just a cowardly anonymous troll out to re-write history and, as a another lying little lefty, trying to distract everyone from the fact that the party you want in power will be run by Hillary Clinton, who saw all the same intelligence and supported (through her own votes and vocal support) both the original conflict and the second one that completed it. Hint: people actually pay attention, so just lying about it doesn't actually change history.

Comment Re:Because the CIA is evil. (Score 1, Interesting) 264

There was never any strong evidence for WMDs regardless of what rumors may have been out there

You're actively pretending that Saddam didn't USE his chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. And you're completely mischaracterizing the UN inspection team's early observations of large caches of VX that could NOT be later accounted for (remember the huge, completely phony "documentation" dump provided by Saddam's people to the UN, followed by active blocking of UN inspectors whenever they asked for unplanned inspections of the very places they thought they might find such things?). Yes, I remember Hans Blix, but you're choosing not to remember how things actually played out on the ground as his inspectors were turned away time and time again.

Comment Re:Because the CIA is evil. (Score -1, Flamebait) 264

Seriously, the CIA is responsible for the creation of Al Qaeda as a threat to America, you're welcome for 9/11.

So let's see ... as everyone has had to do through all of history, we worked with regional interests to help push back against the greater bad guy (the Soviets, continuing to try to expand their territory). The regional guys turn out to have their own post-Soviet-fight agenda. You, however, as typical nonsensical racist, think that people from that region aren't able to make their own decisions or set out to fulfill their own wishes. No, to you those Foreign Brown People are like zombies that would sit and do nothing without the controlling wizardry of Teh Eeevil Amerikkka blah blah blah.

the drone killing campaign which spawns ten terrorists for every one it kills

I see. So you're a bigger fan of going in on the ground with huge column of armor and troops and the supporting logistics so that we can, instead of using deliberate air strikes, get into a non-stop series of random street fights while trying to kill the same terrorists, but instead rack up huge collateral damage while also telegraphing every move on the ground and chasing the targets out of range for months on end. That is an EXCELLENT alternative. And of course that strategy wouldn't do anything to inspire new jihaddi recruits, no not at all.

stupid illegal invasion of Iraq

Oh, here we go. I didn't realize you were just trolling. Sorry. Since you're revising history and just making stuff up, I guess we'll call it a day.

Comment Re:I dunno... (Score 1) 223

Yes, I am bemoaning the loss of the plasma screen, I still think it has the best blacks, but still.

I bought a 60" plasma screen last year. It has terrific blacks, from the panel itself, to a special non-glare coating, to a "round down" function to handle the case where the HDMI stream ends up encoding black as "almost black", and forcing it back to black.

Plasma TVs vanished from the bottom-end, but they still exist. OLED might genuinely replace plasma, though.

Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.