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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Did an Uber Driver Run Over Your Dog? (Score 1) 238

"We need a Buzzfeed article to keep hammering on Uber. What don't Buzzfeed readers like?"

"Ummm...Trump?"

"Great, just say Trump = Uber = failing = bad!"

"But Trump and Uber don't have anything to do with each other...at all?"

"I don't give a fuck! Just make it happen!"

Later (and this is from the article):

Uber has sought to steer clear of Trump, but their values are so close that the brands are utterly intertwined in the public imagination.

Presented with absolutely no justification for how the Trump and Uber brands are "utterly intertwined in the public imagination."

Comment Re:Eeehhh! (Score 1) 71

My guess is because since they're simulating "everything" you can't do it at a very high fidelity. So you're going to have every type of woodland creature and insect and lizard. You can't afford to animate them all, but they need to move. They can either move in a shitty way, or in an "artistic" way. So they flip end over end so they can pretend it's an artistic choice instead of a design (or work effort) limitation.

Comment Re:Speaking of Saudis... (Score 1) 145

You may recall a few years ago some Wahhabists destroyed a pair of large stone buddhas in Afghanistan;

Is Afghanistan Saudi Arabia?

I don't mind Muslims killing other Muslims due to religious conflicts

So what's the problem with selling shitty outdated weapons to Saudi Arabia so they can blow up muslims in Yemen?

Comment Re:Did he misunderstand the bit about gender equal (Score 2) 361

Then if it's so important, why not do without the gender bullshit?

And if we're all going to die now, well, Trump offered to renegotiate the accord in a way that's more fair to the US. And who knows, would maybe even get approved by Congress, and therefore be binding! And the Europeans told him to pound sand.

Why do the Europeans hate the world and want us all to die?

Comment Re:Hints of Future History (Score 2) 247

Destruction of the US global power and influence

I don't want to be a global power. I don't want the US policing the world.

Do you like imperialist American hegemony? How about America just takes care of America, and the rest of the world can deal with their own problems, in their own way, without being bossed around by America?

Comment Re:And also... (Score 1) 247

No. China and the EU see a strategic opportunity here to use technological advances to do the the USA in the 21st Century what the USA did to Britain in the 19th Century—use newer industrial technology to out-compete the established corporate interests.

How exactly does that work? I mean, if the new technological advances make businesses more profitable, wouldn't they adopt them on their own without needing global government agreements to force them to?

Comment Re:Speaking of Saudis... (Score 1) 145

I'll let your ad hominem go because you're a faggot.

So, you want to "make war on the Saudis." And then what? You defeat their government, and you now have 33 million muslims with no government. Oh and you're in possession of the holiest sites in all of Islam.

If you grant them "freedom" to choose their own government, they're going to choose another Islamic government because the people like Islamic government. They're muslims. They want muslim government. Also, people tend to get a little testy after they've been invaded and their lives completely disrupted by the destruction of their government, so there's a non-zero chance the new Islamic government is more hostile than the old Islamic government.

If you install your own despot to rule over them, well great you've replaced one despot with another, that the people like even less, and now you're responsible for all the atrocities that come with despotism. I'm assuming this a secular despot, so he's also violently suppressing the people's religion.

You could exterminate the people. But genocide is kind of "frowned upon."

If you want them to have "freedom" (with the constraint that they must not choose another Islamic government, and must choose some kind of peaceful coexistence with others), then you'd have to change their fundamental worldview, which means ridding them of Islam. So you'd kind of have to convert them from Islam to something else. Probably not going to be atheism because it's pretty damn difficult to replace something with nothing (and ultimately this isn't much different than the "secular despot" option above). Buddhism or some shit is pretty alien. Maybe another Abrahamic religion? I don't think they're going to go for Judaism. If only there were some well-established Abrahamic religion that puts a really big emphasis on peaceful coexistence with others, and features as its holy figure the 2nd holiest figure in Islam. If only if only...

"Make war." And then do what? What's the victory condition, and what's the path to get there, given the existence of 33 million inbred Muslims?

Comment Re:Speaking of Saudis... (Score 1) 145

Look, my answer to Islam is Coulter's. I'm a traditionalist Catholic. If the Pope called for a crusade I'd be down. But I don't think that's a political reality.

What's your answer to Saudi Arabia? Nuke them? Crusade? I don't think those are politically viable options. Pretty sure telling them "fix your shit" is as good as it's going to get.

Comment Re:The same 'Patriotically Minded' Russians (Score 1) 195

Explain the 2% thing to me. I was always under the impression that NATO members pledge to spend 2% of their GDP on their military (which is the hardware and personnel used in NATO operations). There are no penalties for not doing it, so it's more of a "suggestion," but still the freeloading europeans weren't doing it. And Americans (particularly the ones whose support Trump wanted) would much prefer they meet these pledges.

You're saying it's actually some bait and switch about NATO dues? How does this bait and switch work? We're not supposed to care about the total defense spending, but should be caring about the dues paying? And were duped in some way about this?

At the end of the day, don't more guns for NATO members mean Putin's less likely to attack, and if Putin does attack, it'll be easier to defend because the guns are already in hand?

I guess he's either brilliant, or an idiot, or a brilliant idiot. Still seems to me a 5 year old could have come up with a better plan if you're going to be clever enough to make a puppet of the President of the United States. If you can manage that, why not just...have him announce he's pulling out of NATO? This is sort of feeling like a Dr. Evil plan to me.

Comment Re: I'm not suprised... (Score 0) 1109

Again, "draining the swamp" means "changing the lobbying rules." It has nothing to do with appointments.

Trump supporters are perfectly happy with the draining of the swamp, because they understood what "drain the swamp" means (changing the lobbying rules). When you pretend "drain the swamp" means "appoint people who meet my political criteria" you're not saying anything persuasive to Trump supporters. You're just confirming their preconception that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Comment Re:I'm not suprised... (Score 3, Insightful) 1109

"Draining the swamp" means 5 specific promises related to lobbying, and he's enacted them for the executive branch (no lobbying after executive branch service for 5 years, no lobbying for a foreign power ever). The rest require the legislature, and they're working on that.

You can't just make up whatever you want "Draining the swamp" to mean and then say he's not doing it. "Trump didn't appoint only lesbian eskimo transmidgets to the Supreme Court! So much for 'Draining the Swamp,' huh?!?!"

Slashdot Top Deals

What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.

Working...