Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Management structure and meritocracy (Score 3) 84

what I read about their diversity and social impact team would certainly be enough to make me run, screaming

It's fundamentally driven by the desire of the VCs to establish a broader and ultimately cheaper labour pool, so they've hired themselves an SJJ (social justice jihadist)—white males not allowed to participate—to advance the backroom bigbucks cause of white-male sticker shock under the false flag of her own sincere yet progressive-at-any-cost value system.

Comment Re:Richard Stallman Does This. (Score 1) 38

EMACS is indeed the only software that ever caused me physical injury.

After a multi-day editing binge on a CKIE keyboard I went to the campus medical center. Muscle strain on my left pinky from rotate/stretch/curl of my large hands to hit control ...

Now, I would never tamper with University property but a couple of days later days later, there was a little piece of plastic next to my keyboard , and the shift-lock no longer toggled allowing me to remap the control key to where God meant it tone. . .

hawk

Comment Re:Social Justice Twitter (Score 0) 59

Typical SJWNPAT (my acronym for SJW Normal Person Anti-Terrorist), all Twitter is doing is censoring people for criticizing Ethics in Western society. Sure, some people have claimed in ISIL's name to have murdered a few people here and there, but first of all THOSE people they supposedly "murdered" are professional victims and their claims of being murdered are highly suspect no matter how many videos we produced of them being beheaded and threads on /r/WesternSocietyInAction you can point at where every laughed at the Beta Cuck Infidels. And secondly, just because they said they were ISIS doesn't mean they were, I mean, it's a hashtag, you can't police that. You can't blame some guy on Twitter who is just concerned with Ethics and sends a few rape threats to Hillary Clinton THAT ARE CLEARLY NOT SERIOUS with some other guy who murders people because that's totally unfair. And also (continued on thread 94)

Comment don't look down, coyote (Score 1) 284

At this point power consumption matters a heck of a lot more for ubiquity than pure performance gains.

I'm sure the fire-breathing dragster edition of current silicon technology (with a pin count to match) will continue to exist at an upscale price for those willing to pay for it.

That uncomfortable rush in your stomach? It's from clinging to yesterday.

Comment Re:There's an add-on for that.. (Score 1) 385

>I don't want to accept those cookies, I want to say
>"this site can set cookies, this site can fuck off" ... that
>has been a standard feature of Firefox for at least a
>decade.

It's not that new . . . it long predates the firefox name and mozilla foundation.

I think it was in Netscape 3 . . . I don't remember if it's older than that.

hawk

Comment Re:Oh good, a reason (Score 1) 336

What are Trump and Cruz's views on NSA mass surveillance? I doubt that either oppose it but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Rubio's comments don't seem, on the surface, to be out of whack with 99% of Republicans. I'd be surprised if other current candidates considered by most to not be insane strongly disagree with him on this. (Yeah, Rand Paul might, but he's already dropped out, and in any case...)

What makes Rubio more attractive than those two are that he's not on the theocratic wing, unlike Cruz, and... well, he's not Trump.

Comment Re: Militant Slashdot (Score 1) 284

Automatic weapons like a belt-fed .50 machine gun are terrifying because they are mounted and can sustain fire for long enough to mow a bunch of people down. If you actually fired that modified AR-15, you probably emptied the magazine pretty quickly, hit the target a couple of times and spewed the rest of the rounds up above the target.

Fully automatic fire, especially from a light hand-held rifle with a magazine filled with so-so .223 rounds, is pretty crappy at actually hitting anything. It was used for suppressing fire until the military decided that it was nothing but wasteful and changed it to burst-fire. If all of the criminals made their little pistols fully automatic, the homicide rate would probably go down and they would go broke buying ammunition.

Comment Re:Want big Hollywood movies? Eliminate Hollywood (Score 1) 136

I'm sure the majority of actors would love what you're saying. Most actors don't get anything close to a living wage.

Now, sure, a few lead actors do, but then they're worth it. They pull people in to watch the movie so that it's capable of making its money back and paying something slightly less shitty to the other actors.

The other problem with the "We don't want actors earning outrageous salaries like $250,000 per movie!" (seriously, that's actually not unusual for a headliner) argument is it ignores context. Acting is a shitty career. If you're unsuccessful - and you probably will be - you'll end up leaving penniless. If you succeed, well, you have an expiration date (not a massive market for older people in Hollywood) after which you'll probably be incapable of useful employment because you just wasted ten years on a combination pretending to be someone else, and serving customers at cafes to make ends meet. You'll have next to no useful skills, beyond being available for bit roles in TV shows.

I'm not saying Hollywood is the most efficient of money making industries, but the salaries, at least, are, if anything, too small, largely because it relies upon unrealistic eager dreamers hoping they'll win the popularity lottery and get to be the next Brandon Routh or Kate Bosworth.

Comment Re: Militant Slashdot (Score 1) 284

You appear to have missed the part about the governments that attempt to enact such social engineering having tanks and planes to kill you with before your guns have a chance to mean a damn thing.

Assuming that your only interface with the enemy will be through your strongest and most defensible position is the sort of idiocy that has permeated the arrogant US military since at least as early as Vietnam. It's especially idiotic when the 'enemy' lives in your own country and is indistinguishable from yourself. A rebellion would likely involve very little shooting at tanks and planes with .22 rifles. However, the supply chain that keeps those tanks and planes functioning is enormous, intertwined with civilian infrastructure, and extremely difficult to protect from within.

I'm not weighing in on the whole "we have guns to use against the government" debate... I'm just pointing out that your tired old argument doesn't reflect reality very well. I mean, supply chain issues aside... history tells us that bombing and shelling cities full of your own civilians doesn't exactly instill a sense of gratitude and acceptance toward the government. Quelling an urban guerrilla rebellion is more of a police action and would primarily use small arms.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 284

Of course they do. Were you trying to employ a reductio ad absurdum argument?

We casually infringe on their natural rights because we want to and they (often) can't stop us. That we infringe on their natural rights doesn't mean that they don't exist, any more than it does when our government infringes on ours. We do the same thing to humans who live in different nations, and the established premise is that humans have natural rights.

Slashdot Top Deals

There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.

Working...