Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment That's easy (Score 1) 829

Piss people off by spending it, or not spending it, the way I want. Since I'll be dead and have no heirs there's no reason to spend it on others, especially when no one bothered to spend their money on me during my lifetime.

Screw people. We're supposed to be the smart ones. If you want to spend a fortune, make your own. Don't expect someone else to spend their money the way you want.

Comment Re:Everyone has right to self defense (Score 1) 180

and able to quickly join a well-trained militia

And thus, "a well regulated militia. . ." yet I don't see the NRA agreeing every person who owns a gun being regulated in any sense of the word nor claiming the same group is part of a militia and should be called up for training by the government.

After all, if you're going to call up a group of people you need to have them registered and that is the last thing the NRA wants despite what the 2nd Amendment says and implies.

Comment Re:Personal Responsibility? (Score 1) 706

what ever happened to "Personal Responsibility"?

Are you seriously suggesting people should be held accountable for their actions? That's crazy talk! Imagine the calamity which would ensue if this were true.

No more being forced to hand over your money to a private company because the government told you to do it, no more people whining after someone kills themselves because they were arrested for being somewhere they had no right to be and didn't want to answer for their crime, no more people trying to justify not paying someone for their work, the list goes on.

You might want to reconsider your comment in light of how ridiculous it is. Why have personal responsibility when there's always an excuse or someone else gets to pick up the tab?

Comment Re:"I am about to be killed, tortured, or exiled," (Score 1, Interesting) 706

The website did not willing give up the account information- it was stolen.

I'm confused. Does Ashley Madison not have possession of the information? When these hackers broke in, did they take the information and not leave anything behind?

I ask because many times on here when talking about people stealing songs the argument is always brought up that nothing was actually stolen since the original owner still had the song. Therefore, there was no theft but is instead considered "sharing".

If the above analogy is correct then there's no problem. Nothing was stolen, only shared because information wants to be free. So which story are we going to use today?

Comment Re: Idiocy. (Score 2, Insightful) 394

No, it's good security. Users do not need to have admin privileges so they can install every piece of crapware on a machine which isn't theirs or, if it is, poses a security risk to everyone else on the network.

Locking users down is good IT policy and fortunately, where I work, it is followed. You need something installed, put in a ticket with a justification. You don't need War and Peace, just a blurb on how the software relates to your job.

If you can't do that, you don't need it and most certainly do not need to be able software at will.

Comment Re: Shocking (Score 0) 244

Thank you for deflecting and coming up with excuses.

A mother that smokes, drinks, does drugs while knowing she is pregnant is considered to be committing child abuse.

No, it's not abuse because if it were so everyone who had kids and smoked would be committing child abuse and you never, ever see them being charged as such.

What is happening is poisoning, plain and simple. From the mother to the unborn is a direct link so whatever she smokes, drinks, ingests, snorts or shoots goes directly to her unborn. She is poisoning her unborn child but you, and others, apparently don't have a problem with that.

I don't know where your obese argument is headed, but I don't see that as causing problems for the child.

Obese women are at greater risk of having children with congenital defects or stillbirths.

If you want to try and argue that child abuse is perfectly acceptable, so murder should be perfectly acceptable, perhaps you should rethink your argument?

You claiming it's murder doesn't make it so and your argument claiming child abuse is equally false. The fact remains people such as yourself make a big deal of forcing a woman to have a child, even if she doesn't want it, even if she's been raped as a ten year old, even if the kid will die a horribly painful death shortly after it's born because of some genetic anomaly, yet you remain horrifically silent on the slow poisoning of the unborn.

If you're trying to claim the moral high ground that you're trying to protect a "life", you fail miserably because who knows how many "lifes" are killed each year by women who smoke, drink heavily, do drugs or are obese. Apparently when those women kill their child it's no big deal.

Comment Re: Shocking (Score 1, Informative) 244

But it's okay if the woman smokes, drinks heavily, does drugs or is obese while pregnant, right? Slowly poisoning the unborn, creating a greater opportunity for malformations or birth defects is acceptable so long as we keep popping out babies, right?

People who say they want to stop abortions because they're protecting the unborn never want to talk about any of the above because then suddenly the government is getting into one's personal life whereas telling a woman she MUST have a baby isn't government intrusion into one's personal life.

Hypocrites

Comment Re:65 VW Bug (Score 3, Insightful) 373

As would my 2010 Hyundai. It has a key and the typical remote. No fob to get hacked, always able to get into my car even if the battery in my remote dies, don't have to worry about a malfunctioning fob.

There's a reason analog is still better for many applications. Keyed entry for cars should be mandatory.

Comment Re:How is it Ukraine's fault (Score 5, Informative) 249

When the World Trade Center collapsed, there were those who said the burning fuel from the airliners never got hot enough to melt the steel beams of the buildings. This means, in their warped view, there was no way for the buildings to have collapsed on their own and were instead deliberately destroyed.

The problem with that idea is twofold. While the heat from the burning fuel may not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel, it was sufficient to heat the metal and cause structural deformation.

Further, these conspiracy folks completely ignore all the other combustible material inside the buildings which WERE hot enough to warp the beams and pull them laterally from the sides of the building (see this sheet, numbers 8 and 9 for a further explanation) which then precipitated the pancake effect we all witnessed.

Thus, the reference to not being able to melt an airliner.

However, these same folks ignore incidents such as this one where a tanker fire directly under a bridge was able to melt steel beams. It's the way conspiracy theories work. Ignore anything which contradicts your point of view or explain them away as not relevant to their rantings. Just like Russia and their proxies have done trying to claim their innocence at shooting down the civilian airliner.

Comment How is it Ukraine's fault (Score 4, Insightful) 249

I have never understood the blatant lies coming out of the Russian military or their proxies when they claim it was Ukrainian forces who shot down the airliner. I can only presume they believe people around the world are as gullible as the average Russian, and possibly just as drunk, because they have never answered any of the following questions.

If Ukraine was the only one who had helicopters and jets, why would they need anti-aircraft weapons against farmers and miners (the term Putin has used to refer to his troops in Ukraine)?

If the plane was coming from the West, meaning it was flying into Ukrainian airspace from a known location, why would Ukraine, if it had anti-aircraft weapons deployed, target then shoot down an aircraft not coming from the East?

How does Russia and their proxies explain the fact postings were made on known Twitter accounts and radio intercepts recorded of Russian proxies bragging about shooting down a Ukrainian jet?

Why is it that pictures of a Buk missile system were taken near the shoot down site, the same system which was then tracked on its way back to Russia AND which had one missile missing?

How does Russia and its proxies explain that people in the area witnessed the launch of the missile from territory under Russian control? Not just one person, but several, all pointing to the same general area?

Why did Russia and its proxies prevent investigators from entering the crash site for days afterwards? What evidence were they trying to hide?

If Russia or its proxies did not shoot down the civilian airliner, why did Russia veto a UN resolution to fully and openly investigate the incident? If Russia is innocent they should have been happy to have an investigation to prove their innocence.

It is quite clear Russian troops and/or their proxies shot down a civilian airliner, then bragged about it, yet beyond all reasonable comprehension they stubbornly cling to the fantasy they are not criminally responsible. It's as if the they've learned nothing over the last 100 years since the coup.

Comment Re:Uber is not the answer (Score 4, Insightful) 168

Nobody calls a spade a spade anymore.

Uber is a taxi service but is trying to claim it's not a taxi service even though people use them as a taxi to go from one place to another which is not along the route of the driver. The reason they claim they're not a taxi service, even though they are, is because they would have to abide by the rules all the other taxi services have to abide by, including additional insurance for their drivers and associated fees.

Calling a spade a spade.

Comment Re:And they didn't (Score 1) 528

I just saw that today at work (ad blocker not installed) when looking at a comparison of Windows 7, 8.1 and 10 on TechSpot. There I am reading the article and BAM! up pops an ad pointing to a keyword in the sentence.

I believe each page had three ads which I closed within 2 seconds of seeing.

Reminds me of the Futurama episode, Bicyclops Built for Two, where they go online and are bombarded by all the virtual ads.

Comment Re:Cool (Score 1) 363

Using your logic this is the same reason we shouldn't be giving to Israel. They can CLAIM the money isn't being used to throw Palestinians off their land or build more illegal settlements on Palestinian land, but, as you said, money is fungible.

Since they can use the U.S. taxpayer money given to them for other projects this frees up money for Israel to use in other ways.

But you know money is fungible and you do not want the taxpayers to pay for apartheid policies.

To downgrade the human mind is bad theology. - C. K. Chesterton

Working...