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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The "Party of Lincoln," and the Southern Strate (Score 0) 506

I do notice you don't actually address my points directly. You can't argue that the Republicans were form as slavery abolitionists, so you misdirect. You can't argue that the KKK were created by Democrat populace, so you misdirect.

Fortunately, the user "cold fjord" has used his/her excellent knowledge to furnish you with links. At least check them out please, before dismissing them out-of-hand.

Comment Re:WTF? (Score -1) 506

You do know that the US *Republican* Party was formed to end slavery in the US, right? It was the (Southern-oriented) Democrats whose members formed the KKK and instituted the racial discriminations laws (eg. 'Jim Crow' laws). It was only in the 1960s that the Democrats changed their point of view (kinda: the pictures you see of police with dogs vs black teens come under Democratic presidencies). The Republican party doesn't want to coddle minorities because it believes that minorities are just as capable as the majority, and believes that introducing dependence perpetuates problems. The Democrats want to keep dependency going because they get to harvest votes (instead of the cotton they used to get). Yes, this is surprising news to you that the *Republicans* believe in true equality regardless of race - but that is the history if you care to look.

By The Way - both the Republicans and Democrats suck. Badly. I'm a 'classic liberal' (also called 'libertarian') myself - people should be treated equally regardless of race, and in the US should be subject to the US Constitution (from which all laws must be compliant with - which is not what we see now). Hence, when I listen to the Tea Party their political views make more sense than the corruption of the other parties. Ted Cruz for Prez in 2016 (Hiliary Clinton would be an even worse disaster than Obama has been; they might promise a great deal, but it is the delivery that counts).

Comment It Depends. (Score 1) 157

First I glance at the title. If it immediately registers as something completely irrelevant to my existence (e.g., anything that sounds like court news or politics), I proceed to the next one. Otherwise, I start reading the summary. If the summary tells me more than I actually needed to know (which is typical when the article is genuinely IT-related but concerns software I do not use, administer, or care about), I proceed to the next headline. If the summary leaves me wanting to know more, I read either the article or the comments, depending on the nature of the subject matter and whether I imagine the source would be more knowledgeable about it than the average Slashdot commenter. (All sources are not equal in this regard.)

Comment Re:Still illegal under NZ Constitution (Score 0, Informative) 216

As a Kiwi I once heard some talk that the indigenous Maori were all for a New Zealand Constitution as it would enshrine the Treaty of Waitangi. However, someone pointed out that this would also limit the extent of the Treaty of Waitangi, whereas now it is kinda amorphous as to what it covers (Maori apparently had ownership rights of radio waves for TV and radio, and required compensation for the use of use). Note, I'm part NZ-Maori. I'm just pointing out something interesting I heard about the maneuverings of interested parties for a NZ Constitution and why one sector of society supported it and then dropped support. Perhaps what I heard was wrong - but it seems plausible to me.

I also heard that the multi-culturalists seem to think that Sharia is 'harmless' and should be recognized in a New Zealand Constitution. This is such a bad idea I'm surprised it had not been slapped down violently straight away - but the 'left' (Labour and Greens, in NZ political terms) is full of people who are staggeringly fact-free, and only think in the most 'woolly' of terms (let's hold hands and sing kumbaya with jihadis, eh?). Sharia has been trying to make inroads into NZ:
Sorry to wander slightly off-topic in my response to post about the NZ Constitution. I'm just trying to point out to fellow kiwis that 'Godzone' is as much under threat by the Cultural Jihad of stealth Sharia as anywhere else (US, Britain etc) except that we have even weaker Free Speech protections than elsewhere.

New Zealand Governments are generally benign. Putting in spying on citizens with very few legal protections and hoping that the Government will always be benign is stupid. Hopefully someone will have a bright idea on how to stop this (anyone?).

Comment Re:Learn OpenCL (Score 1) 198

The real trick to efficient GPU programming is trying to keep as much in video memory as you can - by optimizing the textures you use (I'm a GLSL game developer, so this is *the* critical performance issue). I would also recommend OpenCL over CUDA. OpenGL has shown a longevity that made working with it worthwhile, and with billions of mobile devices using alongside PCs (Win/Linux) and Macs it seems that OpenCL could very well have the same longevity too. Since your time is a very precious thing it is worth investing that time in something that will be around for a long time and is be cross-platform (mobiles and tablets are the current fad, the browser with WebGL creating amazing apps could well be the next one).

As for libraries, I use the JoGL bindings for Java. That allows my application (a jet combat flight simulator in development) to work cross-platform with almost no porting effort. Using Java makes using lots of CPU cores easy, but the performance constraint is never the CPU, it is the GPU - so by using Java to save development time on routine stuff (heap-based resource management under multi-threading) and spend some of the saved time on optimizing the GPU code (which is the performance critical stuff).

Comment Re:Get rich quickly .. (Score -1) 133

This is Slashdot, man. It should go something like this:
1. Get too starz
2. Smash em togetha
3. ???
4. Profit !!111
Good if this paper covers some calculations for the ??? bit (I'm a bad doggy, despite being an ex-astrophysicist I didn't even read the linked paper - on the 'turps' at the moment, hic! :) ).

Comment Re:admitted? (Score -1) 284

Could you please re-read the topic of this thread. What is it? I believe it is about Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Yes? Then my post was *on topic* and specifically aksing for more information from you giving your dubious statements of the past. In other threads I make similar posts because I can see the geopolitical connections and try to explain them for the benefit of others. I am not responsible for you if you have a closed mind and lack the background knowledge to see the connections I'm elucidating for interested Slashdotters (I get a lot of mods up from people who agree, and rational debate and opposition from those who disagree but have open minds).

You may be amazed to find out that the Internet does not revolve around you personally. Furthermore, I don't intentionally set out to irritate you with the facts and citations I post - suprise! when I post you don't factor into my calculations one whit. I could complain about your faux righteous indignation and silly positions but I believe in Free Speech - so I read your posts to see what merit they have (despite your statements being pro-jihadi in spirit) and engage in debate instead.

If you don't like me, that's cool, just skip my posts. Don't follow the citiations I give, even though they might expand your horizons with *facts*. I'm happy with that. Very happy.

My posts are so that others may see what the mainstream media are holding back from them. They can decide for themselves the merit to my posts without conceited self-righteous jihad-supporting censors deciding for them. In fact, rather than debate I've had two people of that ilk mod me down consistently, but have now have been permanently banned by Slashdot editors from modding ever again (the editors told me). I hope you don't make the same mistake. The solution to bad speech is more speech, never censorship. Have I not demonstrated on multiple occasions that I will read and consider any reputable citations you have given, and then respond in kind? This is debate, and it is how our civilization advances. Censorship is for socialists/communists and jihadis.

Leave the moral low ground and puerile response to facts and posters you disagree with and stand up for Enlightenment values in the face of totalitarianism determined to destroy it (which is *obvious* to anyone watching what is *really* going on in the World away from the mainstream media propaganda). If you don't have the minerals to do yourself then at least stay the fsck away from those that do - because I have done the research and I *know* what I'm talking about with respect to this topic.

Comment Re:admitted? (Score -1) 284

Thanks for your reply. I see that you want to be principled and retain the moral high ground. Thus, you feel that you cannot condemn others aside from your own Government. There are numerous replies I could make to this, pointing out how this could be the result of indoctrination in the Cultural Marxist "moral equivalence" and "Critical Theory" fallacies. It could be cowardice, since it is easier to criticize a Government that doesn't chop your head off or use blowtorches on you rather than those that do. However, instead I will urge you to consider the following quote, attributed to Hobbes:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

If you are a good man or woman, why do you do nothing?
Why do you not rail against the global jihad that all informed people can see is going on in the World? why do you not condemn the barbarity of jihadis whose two stated goals are to force all the innocent people of the entire World to submit to their political order (I'm sure you well know that "submission" is what Islam means after all) - and those same jihadis are prepared to slaughter Muslim and non-Muslim alike to get their goal. Resulting in the deaths of an estimated 270 million since Mohammed and daily carnage around the globe in the name of Islam. Please take a look at the *facts* of the daily death toll (don't worry, the links are apolitical, just the facts):

By withholding your condemnation you are implicitly consenting to the worldwide slaughter of innocents. While you should hold the US Government to account (and it is good you do), surely you should have even an stronger voice for those that are even worse than the US - those that saw off heads, and rape, and brutalize and oppress hundreds of millions of their fellow Muslims around the globe. Being silent on this is taking the moral low ground. We ought to be defending liberty everywhere - and that means blaming the US when it does wrong and consistently condemning jihad and the ideology that grows and supports it. That is the moral high ground.

Comment Re:admitted? (Score -1) 284

Thank you for the reference. I hope you also understand that the US waterboarded only three people (although clearly KSM got it multiple times, but worked out the torture had an emphasis on the psychological rather than physical - and that the US did not want to kill him).

Now we've dealt with the US torture of three men (where I agree with you is disgusting), can we get a comment from you about the *thousands* of people tortured by jihadis (where captured Al Qaeda manuals don't use the controllable fright tactics of waterboarding, but instead specify eyeball removal, gas blowtorches to the skin, and the old favorite of Middle Easterners, mains electricity to the genitals). Why do you guys never condemn that? I stand with you in condemning the US, but where we part ways is that I see the jihadis are far far far worse and more frequent in their torture. Surely you find that even more repugnant than the US activity.

Comment Re:Romania? (Score 0) 284

Yeah, Romania doesn't have a problem with putting evil guys in jail. The US is now so politically correct and insane (thanks to decades of Cultural Marxism that has spread from the universities - after being seeded by Marxists of the "Frankfurt School") that every wannabe hotshot lawyer will do anything to get evil guys out - because it'll make the lawyer famous, and most importantly, very *rich*. Even you baulk at the thought of actually imprisoning terrorist masterminds - what is the world coming to!

Comment Re:Alas, the economics outweigh the dangers? (Score 0) 211

You don't benefit from cheap and abundant energy ? used for your transportation, food, medicine, iPad, computer, heating, lighting, entertainment, interwebs, etc etc?
It is easy to make a "class warfare" statement pointing at a politician or businessman. How about you own up to the fact that we *all* need the energy and benefit from it. Unless you want to live in a mud hut eating sustainable algae cakes and going to bed at sundown you should accept the fact that for a modern society to function is needs cheap energy - and your current choices to meet the demand are fossil and nuclear (nothing else produces enough cheap energy). We're addicted to energy, once you accept that then you get some perspective on whether the "oil executives" are helping or hurting modern society. Sure, don't let them polute without being accountable - but the demand for energy comes from you and me. They are simply satifying that demand.

Slashdot Top Deals

Adding features does not necessarily increase functionality -- it just makes the manuals thicker.