Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:What should happen but won't (Score 0) 821

Wow. Could you at least wait for the body to reach room temperature before insulting the man?

If I were religious, then I would be quite sure Scalia is already WAY above room temperature now. At least the soul part.

Remember Bush v Gore? Remember Citizens United? Just a few of the low lights of his miserable career of hypocrisy.

My new theory is the Pope did it. Scalia's last act was to block Obama's desperate effort to save the planet from massive climate change, and the Pope finally prayed, "Lord, this is too much. It's time to smite him." (Gawd did it while Scalia was sleeping because he knows the Pope is a kind of gentle guy.)

Comment Re:What happens next... (Score 1) 821

I think you're writing in a humorous vein and I hope you get your mod points (but the moderation system needs MAJOR improvements), but I do want to comment on one part of your post...

The Democratic Party was quite different in the South. There were some actual progressive Democrats like LBJ, but they were allied with the Dixiecrats, who were really anti-Republicans, not believers in anything positive. (Yes, they believed in racism, but I don't count that as a positive belief.) In today's lingo, the extremist Democrats (if there were any) would have called them DINOs (which is sort of the opposite of the neo-GOP fanatics calling Republican moderates RINOs).

Comment Preventing 4-4 deadlocks (Score 1) 821

You gave me a sort of crazy idea, but maybe it would push the neo-GOP lunatics away from the deadlock stalling?

Since the Supreme Court's main job (beyond the work of any other court) is to arbitrate the constitutionality of legislation, and since they cannot do that with deadlocked 4-4 decisions, we should modify the Constitution to prevent it. (Setting aside for the moment the fact that they will stall such a proposal to death.) Here's the suggestion:

If there are an even number of justices, then for each case, one justice will be picked by lottery to sit it out. There will always be an odd number of justices ruing on every case, and there will be no ties.

That means the fanatics on either side would be afraid to leave a closely balanced Supreme Court with a missing justice. If that happens, then they could lose on major decisions just by an unlucky draw.

Comment Re:Better financial models for sourceforge? (Score 1) 444

Please read what I wrote before writing a bunch of irrelevant stuff which may well be meaningless trollage. If you can't understand something, then you should ask for clarification. Politely. The following brief response is more than your reply comment (or possibly you) are worth, but for the sake of clarity:

No, I want to help PAY someone to maintain the project. Because I am not rich, I can only afford to pay a small amount, but if a lot of people agree with me that a project (for a new feature, for support of an existing program, or for updating and old application, which are just a few of the examples I've mentioned) is worth supporting, then my small contribution pooled with their small contributions could be enough money to pay someone to do the tedious, difficult, and even skilled work. I think sourceforge should use such a model to help avoid project death.

By the way, I used to be a professional programmer, mostly for database stuff. Unfortunately, I was a second stringer who was lucky enough to work with some top tier people, and eventually concluded I'd never make it to their level. As a career move,it was the right decision, but I still respect the great programmers and would be glad to help support them.

Comment I'll make an exception and rejoice in Scalia's end (Score 3, Insightful) 821

You are wasting time playing with an obvious and flaming troll, but if you want to do that over Scalia, then you should start with Bush v Gore, a decision that was SO bad that even at the time they wrote it, they said that it should NOT be regarded as a legal precedent. As if setting precedent wasn't the main job of the so-called Supreme Court.

There are two aspects of Scalia that I find most interesting. One is how he became his own enemy. At least he claimed that "judicial activism" was a bad thing, only to become one of the most activist judges in the history of the court. His creative work on the Second Amendment was especially amazing in abusing and even destroying the intentions of the Founders he claimed to admire.

The other aspect was his voting power. As far as I know, there has never been a justice who had a shadow second vote like that of Clarence Thomas. Actually, this would be an easy topic to research, though the last part of it will have to wait until Thomas dies. (Gee, now there's a reason to hope Thomas lasts for at least a short while longer?) The votes of all of the Supreme Court justices could be correlated to see which justices vote the same way most often. It's probably already been done, now that we have these computer things, eh? I'm pretty sure that the correlation between Scalia and Thomas will be one of the highest ever recorded.

However, I can go farther and make a new prediction for Thomas without Scalia to tell him how to vote. I think Thomas will attach himself to some other justice, probably Alito if he is the most conservative replacement available, and now correlate extremely highly with that justice's votes. Whatever voting pattern signifies judicial leadership, I'm confident that Scalia's votes showed that pattern (even if he was leading in the wrong direction) and the votes of Thomas will never show such a pattern.

Comment Re:What happens next... (Score 0, Troll) 821

My prediction is that the neo-GOP fanatics are going to do EVERYTHING possible to stall the replacement of Scalia past the election, but I hope President Obama puts up a really good candidate and makes them look as bad as possible before the election. This could be another example of Obama's remarkable good luck, and the country needs LOTS of good luck now.

However, if Obama nominated Jesus Christ, you can be sure the neo-GOP fanatics would fight against the nomination to the bitter end.

Let me repeat, the brand has been hijacked and the hijackers need to be relabeled. They are NOT the Republican Party of Abe Lincoln or the GOP of Teddy or Ike. They are a mob of raging anti-government anarchist lunatics. Maybe you have a better label, but I think neo-GOP is good, largely because "neo" means new and the "O" stood for "Old", way back in the days when words had actual meanings... (These days words are framed for whatever lies the propagandists like.)

As Abe Lincoln said (according to the Donald), "So that government of the corporations, by the lawyers, for the richest 0.1% of Americans, shall rule the earth." Scalia thought so, too, but he was too cunning and diabolical to say it out loud.

Comment If the Democratic Party was smart (Score 0) 821

Well, that was a dumb premise, but if they were, then I think the Democratic Senators would roll over and let the neo-GOP pass EVERYTHING they want through the Senate (with the obvious rubber-stamp from the House of so-called Representatives who actually represent a minority of the actual voters). Then President Obama should veto ALL of the terrible legislation. Maybe the voters would wake up and realize that it matters, eh?

I'm not saying that there aren't any bums on the Democratic side, but the neo-GOP is completely dominated by lunatics. The actual Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln was progressive and liberal, and the GOP of Ike and Teddy was quite principled and pragmatic, not insane. This is a brand hijack, and Scalia was one of the most prominent hijackers.

Time for another bad joke based on the premise that Scalia did not deserve to die peacefully in his sleep. He should have been committed to an asylum, where this could have happened:

After Scalia was sent to the funny farm, he was standing by the fence one day when a driver stopped with a flat tire. The driver started changing the tire, but then he accidentally dropped the lug nuts into the storm sewer. He's standing there trying to figure out what to do, but Scalia says:

"Hey, just take one lug nut off each of the other three wheels, and you can drive to town."

"That's a great idea. What's a smart guy like you doing in the nuthouse?"

"I might be crazy, but I'm not stupid."

Now that I think about it, bad as the joke is (and as many people as it has featured over the years), the punchline could be his epitaph. The tombstone should also mention Bush v Gore and Citizens United (to destroy democracy in America) and some of his other "accomplishments" (for very negative values of accomplish).

Comment Better financial models for sourceforge? (Score 1) 444

Seems to be an invitation to make my pitch again? This is another variation on the ideas presented in several other threads, but...

One of the functional problems of slashdot is how quickly topics go stale. Maybe that is the feature I should put my $15 on? Actually, I am thinking more along the lines of $100/year split into 10 projects for features or continuing costs. (As usual, details available upon polite request. The magic keywords for this one is "dynamic multidimensional topic search in the background".)

However, first a word from our sponsor!

Just joking, no sponsor, but there is a need for some background here. Maybe my premises are mis-focused?

As a wannabe user, I have frequently visited sourceforge over the years. Usually I am looking for specific software to solve some problem, and I often find it. Dead, orphaned, obsolete, fractional, or incomplete. THAT is the problem I want to solve, but I think we have to consider why the projects died, and I wish the new powers-that-be would refer us to some statistics about project death?

I think almost all of the programmers who were driving the sourceforge projects are well intentioned, but somehow fail to live up to their altruism. However, I take the idea pretty broadly. I even think that hoping to strike it rich by creating good software can be a form of altruism... The vow of poverty approach definitely does not work.

Therefore I think that the sincere interest of wannabe users should be assessed BEFORE sourceforge projects get the green light. My suggested form of sincerity would be pledging a $10 charity share towards the budgeted cost of the project. The natural implementation would be for the new owners to set up a 'charity share brokerage' and the wannabe donors would put their donations in a 'charity share account' that can be allocated towards the projects they like. The basic idea would be to prevent orphaned and incomplete projects, or to pick up old projects or ongoing costs on a transparent basis.

I even think the brokerage should earn a commission on the funded projects by providing several important services. (1) Make sure the proposals are complete. (2) Realistic schedule. (3) Acceptable budget (possible effected by competition from competing proposals for similar projects). (4) Testing and other easy-to-forget items are included. (5) SUCCESS CRITERIA. After the project has finished creating the software or otherwise been completed, then they would evaluate the results and the donors know how it came out. (Au, daupr. Keywords "charity shares”.)

Comment My missing option? (Score 3, Interesting) 157

I'll talk to them if they PAY me to listen. Seriously, I'll offer 5 minutes a day to talk to advertisers on the phone, and they can bid for my time. The auctioneer will be allowed to know a bit of my personal information (including what I'm thinking about buying) to attract bigger bids, but the auctioneer will have strong motivation to protect my privacy because that is how they protect their own profits--split with me, of course. My option to give out any personal information, but only after I decide they are selling something I'm interested in, and in that case I may even decide to go past the 5-minute limit.

Oh yeah. One more thing. There should be a minimum bid price, and if no bidder wants to pay that much, then I don't talk to anyone. However, I'm also betting that there are a lot of legitimate companies that would prefer to talk with potential customers who are both qualified and interested.

Not sure if the business model could work that well, but maybe the auctioneer could screen ALL my calls? Certainly would be an attractive selling point when trying to sign up new people, but to do it efficiently they would need to be partnering with the phone company, and I'm not sure I trust ANYONE who is partnering with a phone company.

(Anyone got any advice about the mobile phone situation in Japan? My contract is up in a couple of months, and I really want to leave my current company...)

Comment Re:Shooting the messenger. (Score 1) 327

Assange's revelations embarrassed the US government and the US military, not "rich people".

You must be new around here. What planet did you come from?

I'm not particularly interested in Assange or those specific documents. I'm intensely interested in why people like you (or the role you are pretending to play, perhaps as a paid shill) want the government to have MORE control what LITTLE you know. They are obviously already doing a sufficiently good job.

Comment What, pray tell, is "lameness" (to filter)? (Score 1) 327

Okay, then in that case, it would seem isolating the paragraph should have increased the relative lameness of the comment, but that is not what happened. In isolation, the paragraph did not trigger any complaint.

I think the creators of slashdot were sincere, though I don't yet have any impressions about the intentions or sincerity of the newest owners. However, I also think that slashdot should stop abusing the English language. It has enough problems.

Comment How many years for google to notice scammers? (Score 2) 117

New subject question about how long, the answer is "The google don't care, just like the honey badger." Or you could reword it in terms of the google's new motto: "All your attention are belong to us."

However, the post by OverlordQ that I'm responding to said:

Some sites get ridiculous with that.

No, it is NOT the websites or even the app, though there are things an app developer can do that can make it easier or harder for scammers to use that sort of misleading ad. The REAL problem is that the google don't care about scams or the victims thereof. The only concern of the google is MONEY. These days that is driving them to ever nastier exploitations of our private information, but it does NOT have to be that way.

For example of a possible constructive solution:

Add a "Business model" or "Financials" tab in Google Play. Let the developer explain how the money works, most often by selecting one of the more common options. Then the google would add a secure comment about the evidence.

No, this would not eliminate all scams, but it would let us make better choices AGAINST scammy the business models. Again, details available upon polite request.

Oh yeah and by the way, I've been trying to call the google's attention to these sorts of scams for some years, but it's just one of a LONG list of google-supported scams. With great power the google accepts NO responsibility.

Comment Re:Shooting the messenger. (Score 1) 327

Why did this part of that last reply trigger the so-called lameness filter:

Now about that meta-modding thing. Years since I had noticed it, and it's just as stupid as it ever was. To evaluate the moderation of a comment, to form ANY meaningful opinion about the moderation, I need CONTEXT. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I don't feel like searching in other tabs to see the rest of the thread and the moderation itself is worth the effort, and without the effort, any meta-moderation is worthless. I should have looked for that in the recent discussion of slashdot's future... Make that "possible future".

Now that is truly bizarre. I cut and pasted the last bit into this new comment so I could figure out which word or words were problematic, but in isolation, there is apparently no problem. I think that is sufficient evidence of the importance of context, eh?

Slashdot Top Deals

It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.

Working...