Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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

Comment Re:Too early (Score 1) 32

a Clinton/Bush matchup pretty much goes Clinton's way since her husband's baggage is easier to tote around than Jeb's brother's baggage. And that's the analysis for a close race!

And you're wrong because Clinton's baggage is not her husband's. Bill's popular, Hill isn't. Jeb has some baggage from his brother, but they're looking at the candidates in totality.

Jeb is a moderate former governor of Florida. Clinton is a scandal-beset senator and former Secretary of State. Jeb is neither loved nor hated, he just "is". Clinton is widely seen as dishonest, scheming, and lacking empathy.

Both have associated baggage from family members, but those family members aren't the people standing. Bill Clinton remains wildly popular in most of the US, if his "baggage" were the issue, Hillary Clinton wouldn't be unpopular.

Look, I know Obama is a centrist technocrat, but jesus, the last eight years haven't been that bad for liberalism in the US. For fuck's sake, you people literally got the best possible candidate and president a liberal could hope for in the climate of 2008 and all you've done is bitch bitch bitch, instead of trying to seize any of that momentum to build for better things.

What. The. Everloving. Fuck?

We've bitched because we're still stuck here with the torture, war on whistleblowers, and other Bush-era bullshit that he was supposed to end. Gitmo's still open. We withdrew from Iraq, but only in terms that we were going to anyway. We started a whole bunch of new wars, in Syria and Libya to name but two. Bush gave Saddam Hussein a show travel. Obama extra-judicially ordered the execution of Bin Laden. Obama extra-judicially ordered many other executions too, including drone strikes that have killed unknown numbers of bystanders. It's tempting to say we continued Bush's presidency with Obama, but it's worse than that in reality, we continued Cheney's vice presidency too.

Does any of that sound liberal to you? Seriously?

And what do we have to show for it? Obamacare? That, if you remember, is the policy we keep pointing out to Republicans is:

1. A minor shakeup of what we had already.
2. THEIR FUCKING PLAN FOR HEALTHCARE. The thing THEY were going to implement.

...because when I hear this patronizing regurgitated bullshit from Obamapologists, that's what it comes down to. Obamacare. Whoopiefuckingdoo. A "Universal Healthcare" system that's just as shitty as we had before, and is aimed primarily at reducing the deficit and protecting hospitals and insurers from financial problems more than it's aimed at providing universal healthcare. Which it doesn't actually provide, though, thankfully, the small bright glimmer of light in the otherwise dark cloud, it does at least reduce the number of people without health insurance.

But our government still murders and tortures people. And we hound them across the world for whistleblowing. The social problems America seems to suffer from seem to be worse than ever. We have no fucking improvements in infrastructure because given a golden opportunity to, Obama decided to run down the center and ask for too little, knowing he wouldn't even get that.

Is Clinton going to invade Iran? She will if a Bush-level Republican would do the same, I guarantee it. She'll fuck up on infrastructure spending, spend absurd amounts of time trying to balance the budget for no good reason whatsoever, she'll ignore social issues just like Obama because, hey, she doesn't need to, right? And she'll do what she can to impress the political establishment by obsessing over the security state and ensuring those damned whistleblowers get what's coming to them.

Maybe ultimately you have a different definition of liberalism to mine, but as I've said before, Obama's purpose as president appears to have been to tell us that elections don't matter, that no matter how liberal someone appears before being elected, we'll still end up being fucked over. The country will continue to drift right.

It's been a terrible eight years for liberalism. Utterly and completely terrible. We still had HOPE in 2008. We don't even have that any more.

Comment Re:Misleading title - didn't pass Windows 8 (Score 1) 242

I was very excited by 10 until I installed it on my tablet and found that it was something other than an updated Windows. I definitely think the GP should hold off using it if they're happy with Windows 7, which was a high quality operating system.

Issues:

1. It's bug ridden.
2. Can't comment on performance vs Windows 7, but on my tablet it's awful compared to Windows 8.1. UI latency is terrible.
3. Still insists on tying use of apps to Microsoft accounts.
4. Sizable amount of default UI seems to be constantly pushing you to buy or download things.

10 is "big" and has some nice features, but I really wouldn't push anyone to upgrade unless they've test driven it first and like it.

Comment Re:By what measure, success? (Score 1) 242

It would be difficult NOT to image Windows 10 not achieving at LEAST a 5% market-share when ALL of the installed copies of Windows 7 and 8 out there harass users to upgrade to 10 for free.

But... and it's a big but... not all the installed copies of Windows 7 and 8 harass users to upgrade to 10 for free. Or even offer the option.

To be harassed, you:

1. Need to have a PC that's allowed to upgrade automatically. That eliminates virtually all corporate versions of Windows, which is disproportionately high amongst Windows users.

2. Need to have a PC where the user clicked on the little Windows notification icon, and went through the steps needed to "reserve" a copy of Windows 10. That's not everyone. That's probably not even the majority of the Windows users not covered by (1) above given most users have no idea what that little icon is. For them (people like my wife) the only Windows 10ism they'll ever see is something in a notification bar they usually never look at.

3. Need to have a PC that's "ready" to install. My tablet notified me after two weeks. A week or so later, my main gaming PC notified me that it was ready. They're clearly still pushing it out.

(1) and (3) are dealbreakers beyond the user's control. You could possibly argue that (2) is where the user has made some choices that relate to their interest in Windows 10.

5%, in that context, isn't bad. It's not great either, but it's certainly respectable.

Comment Re:To be expected (Score 1) 242

Yeah that link was posted to Slashdot a few days ago. It's mostly inaccurate concerning Mac OS X - the Dock, for example, was a NEXTSTEP (capitals deliberate) feature from the mid-eighties, for instance. The nearest vaguely Windows 95ish thing you can say about the OS X dock vs older OpenStep docks was that it moved to the bottom of the screen. And the comments about buttons to close/minimize etc originating in Windows 95 are completely ludicrous. It's like he never used a GUI before Windows 95. (I think Mac OS X did copy Alt-Tab though, so there's that, if he'd bothered to mention it...)

Windows 95 was a significant step forward for PC users, but it didn't really do much that wasn't out there on other platforms already. The Start button was mostly a new concept, but Amigans, GEM users, and Mac users didn't really see anything we hadn't seen before.

Comment Re:Even if you opt into HTML5? (Score 1) 176

I'd like example URLs so I can try them on my PC and in the Firefox browser on my Android tablet.

I'll let you know, I've "opted in" on all my browsers but frequently, for some reason, get videos delivered via Flash instead.

Contradiction in terms.

There are degrees of terribleness. The current HTML5 DRM system, which requires each browser on each platform independently support each third party DRM scheme essentially means that content providers get to dictate which operating system and browser you use.

To compare that to Flash, which works on every platform that Flash is available for, is absurd.

Comment Re:Too early (Score 1) 32

Be careful dismissing Republican candidates as clowns during a primary. They always look like clowns then.

Nobody wanted Romney or McCain near anything until they won the nominations either... I think it's a bad idea to read too much into Republican dislike for their choices at the moment, they have a horrible habit of backing the nominee even if they've spend the last eight years saying what a terrible person that nominee was. They'll do it grudgingly, but they'll do it.

Now, that leads us to a likely contest between two McCains: Clinton and (Bush/Christie/whatever) and that's genuinely hard to predict. I'm inclined though to suggest Jeb Bush would win against Hillary Clinton. It'd be tight, but while Bush looks like an out-of-touch rich twit and has the nominal albatross, Clinton also looks out of touch and is widely considered (rightly or wrongly) dishonest.

My sense is that Clinton vs Christie would probably be a Clinton win, for obvious reasons.

The other wildcard is Rubio: other than waffling on immigration, what is he known for? If he can survive the primaries and avoid looking too ideologically right wing, he'll be able to define himself during the election campaign itself, which is a very useful campaign edge that few of the other candidates have.

But like I said, I'm not 100% convinced it'll be Clinton at this point. She's still the most likely, but - well, I'm not going to vote for her in the primaries. God knows who I'll vote for, but something has to happen to the Democrats to swing them back left, or else they'll continue to be "centrist" media puppets for the rest of eternity.

Comment Re:Flash is dead, long live Flash! (Score 2) 176

That's some wishful thinking. If it's dead, how is it that most video sites insist on using it? Where is the support on - forget all browsers, just the big four - for a common real time streaming protocol in HTML5?

From what I can figure out, the only major video site that's switched to HTML5 - and THEN only for most, not all, videos, is YouTube (and some clones of YouTube.) Hulu, Amazon, et al, are still using Flash. Support for iDevices and Android isn't via HTML5, it's via specialized apps, essentially going from a generic cross platform proprietary system to per-platform super-proprietary systems.

Flash isn't dead. It's old, and wants to retire, and everyone wants it to retire, but it's the only one in the office who knows how to manage the creaky old systems we still use, and HTML5 is the new hire we refuse to send on courses to learn "real time streaming" and other things Flash does all the time.

Pretending Flash is dead isn't going to kill Flash. Putting pressure on Mozilla, Microsoft, Google, and Apple to include HLS (and other standardized streaming formats) in their browsers will help, as will demanding the browsers cooperate on a DRM system that isn't the current "Attractive to content providers, terrible for everyone else" crapfest.

Comment Too early (Score 1) 32

Clinton looks like being the Dem nominee, but it's way too early in the cycle to say she absolutely will be. She has a popularity problem to overcome, and there's a sizable ABH contingent within the Democratic Party. She's stunning for her almost complete lack of charisma, her ability to make any displays of empathy or emotion look fake, her enthusiastic embrace of clearly flawed establishment positions on every issue, and a resume that looks like a set of check boxes rather than useful experience.

I can more confidently say I think Sanders is toast, and I don't see Warren as terribly likely either. Sanders is too much of a Ron Paul candidate to do anything but make a lot of noise. Warren has future potential, but she would have had to start "campaigning" four years ago. She's shown herself to be "tough on bad things", but not really anything else.

On the Republican side:

- Again, too early to completely rule out Trump but I'm finding it ridiculously unlikely he'll get the nomination. That view might change if he actually polls well in any early primaries.
- I honestly can't tell about the others. Well, I think the Republicans are unlikely to nominate the religious or ideological extremists (who are mostly positioning themselves for future jobs on Fox anyway), so that leaves - of the ones Fox is picking for their main debates - Bush, Christie, Kasich, Rubio, and Walker. It's tempting to find reasons to disqualify each. Bush is an establishment figure loathed by the grassroots... like Romney (2012). Christie is a populist pseudo-centrist loathed by the grassroots... like McCain (2008). Walker and Kasich are merely known as right wing governors at this point, like numerous former nominees. And Rubio is treading a relatively untrodden path and is fairly popular.

So, TL;DR, I just think it's too early to assume anything. Clinton may win, but if she does, she'll be our McCain (2008) candidate, and we might just lose as a result.

Comment Re:Does it have to be in China? (Score 1) 135

The Far East has plenty of factories that can ramp up production of any virtually any non-radical design in a matter of weeks. The West has no such industry, most factories aren't set up to build anything but specific products for the owners of the factory concerned, and it takes months to segue into new designs.

Which is why China is kicking our ass.

And that won't change either, as long as we assume manufacturing is somehow beneath us as a nation.

Comment Re:launchd not as bad as systemd (Score 1) 163

Honestly, you can't rebut someone's point about a feature of systemd simply by stating a random, completely unsuitable, feature of init. Arguments don't work that way. To rebut something you need to actually deal with your opponent's argument.

BTW init sucks. systemd isn't perfect, but at least it isn't init.

Comment Not really (Score 5, Insightful) 135

The article says they're not aiming at Apple. Instead they're actually jumping, feet first, into the commodity smartphone market. Which might seen suicidal, but, again as the article points out, that's where Scully actually excels (and probably why he didn't get as far with Apple, which was never commodity based, when he was at the helm.)

Essentially he's going to be selling nice, but not spectacular, Android phones, and using branding to differentiate the phones in the market. And he'll probably make a success of it because instead of having the overhead of a giant electronics company to contend with, unlike say Samsung, he's just having a third party put together a design, then outsourcing the manufacture of the thing, concentrating largely on quality (which affects brand) rather than features (which doesn't.)

It's not actually that exciting to nerds. The news is probably orgasm-worthy though if you work in marketing.

Comment Re:Worst. Summary. Ever. And a lie to boot. (Score 1) 1042

It's not a lie in the slightest. The clique dominating the Hugos refused to allow any awards to be given to anyone tainted by crimethink.

That is a lie. There is no "clique dominating the Hugos". There's no such thing as "tainted by crimethink", and if your inanely ridiculous wording were to be interpreted as meaning "Tainted by being nominated by the Puppy slates", at least one Hugo winner was, actually, on the Puppy slates.

You forgot "reactionary", "MRA", and "antifeminist" with your partisan straw man.

No, if I felt those were appropriate, I would have said them - though that said "reactionary" does seem fair, but it's implied by what was said anyway. What I said was 100% accurate, not a strawman.

Perhaps the problem here is that you have no idea what's going on, have decided you have a bad case of identity politics, and have decided to buy a particularly weirdly spun version of what actually happened because you identify with those spinning it that way? Because there's no obvious other reason why you'd resort both to pretending I'm implying the various Hugo groups were generic enemies of so-called "SJWs" ("MRAs", "Feminists", etc), using ridiculous jargon like "crimethink", and generally pretending that something other than what happened happened.=

It's not bizarre at all. The entire point was whether the toxic clique rigging the Hugos would award nominees from outside their clique or if they would take the unprecedented step of handing out more No Awards in a single event than in almost the history of the award.

THERE. IS. NO. CLIQUE. The fans, not some small, closed, secretive group (which is what a clique is) voted against it. Some 6,000 paid up fans voted in this contest. When they voted No Award, which they only did in a handful of categories, No Award was the first choice of the majority.

There is simply no way to reconcile that with the notion some "clique" overrode fans' wishes. No way at all. It's mathematically impossible. Indeed, if you were to somehow mind read the fans, and murder any fan who'd vote against any work because they dislike that work's political views, you'd still have ended up with a huge plurality in favor of "No award" in those categories.

Again, I refer you to the headline. "Hugos Refuse To Award Anyone Rather Than Submit To Fans' Votes". I said this is a lie, because it is one. The fans, not the "Hugos", voted, and the "Hugos", that is, the administrators of the Hugos, accepted that vote. The only people who are refusing to accept that vote, who are refusing to submit to the fan's votes, are you and the puppies.

The blatant rigging was from the people who've been pushing ideology to the point they'll No Award a female author just because people they dislike happened to like her.

This actually proves the opposite of what you're saying. You're claiming identity politics, yet you're giving an example of where identity politics is being explicitly rejected.

You must not browse slashdot very much then because the editors have made a habit of doing that every week. We call it "feminist friday".

That's... fascinating. I obviously haven't, because, no, I have never seen Slashdot's editors try to rig the Hugos by pushing a slate of works deemed inoffensive to liberals. Never. Perhaps you can link to one such story. What works did they recommend, out of interest?

The puppies didn't rig anything, they proved that the hugos WERE rigged in the first place.

They proved they were rigged by... being the ones that rigged them. That's it.

All they actually prove is that while it's possible to game the Hugos and rig the nomination list, it's not possible to win. It's only possible to win a Hugo if your work is good. Game the nominations as much as you like, you'll never win if your work isn't Hugo-worthy.

Which, incidentally, also proves that it's unlikely the Hugos have been rigged for decades, because pretty much every category has had a winner for decades.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the Puppies lost. And they hurt everyone. And no amount of living in some fantasyland where giant SJWs roam the land, somehow mind controlling fandom into voting for stories about lesbian seagulls, will ever help you understand that.

"I have not the slightest confidence in 'spiritual manifestations.'" -- Robert G. Ingersoll

Working...