Awwww yeahhhhh:
https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3704115&cid=43596003

I have two dual-core 64bit laptops.
Thought is to take, say, Arch Linux, and craft a minimal configuration that:

• Installs to a thumb drive
• Supports virtualization
• Boots itself to one core, then the other
• Can bind both the host and guest instances to external mass storage
• Can at least fake some Big Data work

My MacBook Pro's meager 4GB of RAM is probably suicidal for this sort of thing.
However, the intent here is to do preliminary research, and document that I have enough technical chops not to kill myself in a real situation.
I priced the gear I'd need at MicroCenter today. $500-$600. Once I've got the distro configured, and can do a double-USB boot trick, plunking down further cash won't be totally idiotic.

It took me a while to figure out how to identify a user by ID. You can't just randomly put that query string variable in the URL and get any joy.

My Slashdot UID is 8191. Less than 10K, *and* Mersenne prime. #InfowarsPickupLines

— Smitty TheWackoBird (@smitty_one_each) April 26, 2013

Click the Twitter hash link for some quality abuse of Alex Jones.

From Roger L. Simon

Today Sirota seems like an imbecile (well, he did before), but I would venture to say he doesnâ(TM)t know why. So I will spell it out for him: the War on Terror (euphemism alert) is not about skin color. It is about ideology, Islamic ideology.
The Tsarnaevs are white people in the purest sense. They are Caucasians from the Caucasus, of all things, but they believe in Allah â" do or die, apparently.
Too young for the civil rights movement, Sirota is an adherent of an ultra-bourgeois nostalgia for racism that hides under the ludicrous rubric âoeprogressive.â Itâ(TM)s laughable, but itâ(TM)s also sad and dangerous.
It avoids a confrontation with the great issue of our time â" what to do about Islam, an all-consuming ideology that seeks to engulf the world. The Sirotas of our culture want to downplay that but the reality remains.
Sloughing this off on âoewhite skin privilegeâ is particularly worrisome, even venal, because many will believe it. As one who was heavily active in the days that term was invented (â(TM)60s) and helped promulgate it in my writing and speechmaking, I can attest to how dangerous it is. Its intention was never really to cure racism, but to perpetuate it, to increase racial enmity by pointing the finger at people who were, if anything, only culpable in the most remote sense.

From Roger L. Simon

Today Sirota seems like an imbecile (well, he did before), but I would venture to say he doesnâ(TM)t know why. So I will spell it out for him: the War on Terror (euphemism alert) is not about skin color. It is about ideology, Islamic ideology.
The Tsarnaevs are white people in the purest sense. They are Caucasians from the Caucasus, of all things, but they believe in Allah â" do or die, apparently.
Too young for the civil rights movement, Sirota is an adherent of an ultra-bourgeois nostalgia for racism that hides under the ludicrous rubric âoeprogressive.â Itâ(TM)s laughable, but itâ(TM)s also sad and dangerous.
It avoids a confrontation with the great issue of our time â" what to do about Islam, an all-consuming ideology that seeks to engulf the world. The Sirotas of our culture want to downplay that but the reality remains.
Sloughing this off on âoewhite skin privilegeâ is particularly worrisome, even venal, because many will believe it. As one who was heavily active in the days that term was invented (â(TM)60s) and helped promulgate it in my writing and speechmaking, I can attest to how dangerous it is. Its intention was never really to cure racism, but to perpetuate it, to increase racial enmity by pointing the finger at people who were, if anything, only culpable in the most remote sense.

May all dishonorable men know the underside of the bus.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/jenny-sanford-sabotaged-mark-sanford-comeback.html

Murdoch on socialism.

NSFW => Gizoogle knows.

Confessions of a Counter-Revolutionary

At Reason.

God rest your soul, lady.

Just had an interesting discussion on Twitter. Subject topic came up, and I'm all, "If it's legal, why not?"
"Oh, this is absurd/illogical/fallacy/distraction," came the blowback from the "modern" marriage proponent.
I can't figure out why. Is it even incestuous, if the arrangement is biologically incapable of achieving anything in the way of offspring?
Just to refine my point, I was dead to the discussion at homosexuality. Once "anything goes" is fully legal, I'm not tracking any objections to whatever coupling/geometry/number/species feels good to all of the mucous membranes in question.

http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3608279&cid=43343403

Star Drek
Sweet, sweet colossal negative space wedgie.

Growing up as poor white trash, I figured there was some linear acquisition of wisdom with age, and all of the purportedly Really Smart People should be heeded because they had more degrees than a thermometer.
I'm kinda realizing that intellectual bluster != smarts. There are some really foolish people in circulation, making sloppy arguments all over the place.
My task is to avoid becoming that.