Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:This is *SO* unethical ! (Score 1) 221

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) 268

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) 268

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) 268

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) 268

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.

Submission + - Free Pascal Compiler 3.0.0 is out, adds support for 16 bit MS-DOS and 64 bit iOS ( 1

Halo1 writes: Twenty-three years ago, development started on the first version of the Turbo Pascal and later also Delphi-compatible Free Pascal Compiler, for OS/2 no less. Two decades and change later, the new Free Pascal Compiler 3.0.0 release still supports OS/2, along with a host of older and newer platforms ranging from MS-DOS on an 8086 to the latest Linux and iOS running on AArch64. On the language front, the new features include support for type helpers, codepage-aware strings and a utility to automatically generate JNI bridges for Pascal code. In the mean time, development on the next versions continues, with support for generic functions, an optional LLVM code generator backend and full support for ISO and Extended Pascal progressing well.

Submission + - Richard Dawkins Opposes UK Cinemas Censoring Church's Advert Before Star Wars ( 1

An anonymous reader writes: A controversy has erupted in the United Kingdom following the decision of the three theatre chains that control 80% of the movie screens in the country to refuse to show an advertisement for the Anglican church. The 60 second advertisement is for a new Church of England website,, the purpose of which is to encourage people to pray. The Odeon, Cineworld and Vue chains refused to allow it to be shown due to a policy not allowing political or religious advertising. Richard Dawkins supported the Church on free speech grounds, stating, "I still strongly object to suppressing the ads on the grounds that they might ‘offend’ people. If anybody is ‘offended’ by something so trivial as a prayer, they deserve to be offended.” Dawkins was joined by fellow atheist, Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston in backing the right of the Church to show the advertisement, stating “As a gentle atheist, I’m not offended by Church screening gentle cinema adverts; we shouldn’t reject our deep cultural roots in Christianity.” The assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain said he was "flabbergasted" by the decision to refuse to show it. The National Secular Society found it a “perfectly reasonable decision." The Anglican church had wanted to show the advert prior to the screening of the upcoming Star Wars movie given the expected large, multi-generational audiences.

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 710

So now there's no Gnome or KDE on anything but Linux.

That is Lennart's plan. Here's what he says::

think we need to ask ourselves the question if we do ourselves any good
if we continue to support all kinds of kernels that simply cannot keep
up with Linux anymore."

I guess we'll see how writing non-portable *nix code as a strategy works out in the long run. I'm not a fan of the idea. It certainly makes for some big trade-offs. I like having the same desktop available on multiple platforms (and different Linux distros don't count for that).

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 710

More specifically, systemd is Linux-only. The devs have explicitly stated that they are making good use of Linux-specific features. Fine, but if third party software becomes dependent on it then that implies they won't work on *BSD at all. Right? So now there's no Gnome or KDE on anything but Linux.

Seems reminiscent of "embrace and extend" in spirit.

Comment Re:Reagan's mic test (Score 1) 198

Even if some Marine Lieutenant Colonel writes a memo advocating actions to take during nuclear war or mass insurrection, that doesn't either make it national policy or legal. It is nonsense.

Report says North authored plan to suspend Constitution

Reached by telephone Sunday at his home in northern Virginia, Brinkerhoff denounced as 'ridiculous' the report involving him and the Marine now at the center of the Iran-Contra scandal.

Saying he left government in 1982, Brinkerhoff added, 'There never was a plan to install martial law or martial rule. The whole purpose of emergency preparedness is and was to maintain civil rule.

'A lot of memos and lot of plans were written. We have a responsibility to plan for mobilization in case of emergency or war. As far as some evil plot ... it simply is untrue.'


That's not martial law.

2 pints = 1 Cavort