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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:materials... (Score 1) 519

The charges leveled are probably simply to hold him on till they dig through his life.

Personally, I think that the charges leveled have little to do with this guy; they are to teach everyone else a lesson: Don't do this, or we'll make your life mighty inconvenient. They don't want people with wires and fuses hanging off of them constantly trying to get through airports because they think it's clever or funny, causing massive logjams in security so that the people who just want to get from point A to point B can go their merry way.

It's the same reason why if you joke about, "It's not like I have a BOMB in my briefcase!", they'll haul your ass off to jail. Not because they actually believe that you have a bomb in your briefcase, but because if someone actually does think that someone has a bomb, they want that person treated with the utmost of seriousness.

I don't like the situation the way it is, and I'm sure that there could be more sanity around the whole issue, but I also think that what they do is not completely without merit and I do kinda understand where they're coming from. People shouldn't engage in assholery with people who are responsible for protecting the security and lives of others. Most sane people wouldn't pull out a realistic-looking toy gun, point it at a police officer, and laugh and say, "Ha ha! I'm just kidding! No need to get all upset about a simple joke..." But then we have people who think it's perfectly fine to engage in such tomfoolery with TSA agents.

Comment The vast explosive materials conspiracy (Score 5, Interesting) 519

I hear that there's a vast conspiracy to load up every airplane that flies with a highly flammable and explosive material, that sometimes this material even makes up the bulk of the weight of the aircraft in flight. It's everywhere on the plane and people doesn't even realize it, even stored in vast quantities inside the wings of most commercial airliners. The rumor I heard, and I know this sounds a bit outlandish, is that it's even pumped into the engines, where it's actually very common for it to cause small explosions that most people don't even realize or think about.

The thought of it scared me so much that I decided that I would only drive places in my car instead.

Comment Re:"first time plagiarist" (Score 1) 519

Did you see the part where it says, "First time accepted submitter mbeckman writes..."?

I suppose that mbeckman could be a buddy of Timothy, who greenlit the article for him to make him feel good on his first try. But I find a much simpler explanation much more plausible: Timothy was probably browsing the submissions and saw mbeckman's first and greenlit it because at the time he was browsing, he didn't see whoever57's. I know it's not as conspiracy theorish, but there you are.

Really though, is this a thing now? Grousing because you don't get your article greenlit on Slashdot? I've had several that I thought should have been and weren't, even things that got greenlit later with what I thought was an inferior write-up. I've also had some that were greenlit. I had probably three or four that I thought were really good turned down before I got my first one greenlit. After that, I didn't care so much. If I submit something and it gets greenlit, great; if not, oh well. I like Slashdot, but I don't particularly need it to validate my self-worth.

Comment As a Georgian... (Score 1) 1163

As a Georgian, I'm sorry we're on that list. If it goes through, I'll do my best to make sure that Atlanta (which is actually a bit more liberal than the podunk villages out in the sticks where most of these people live) promptly secedes from the New Confederacy and rejoins the Union. We'll be like the Andorra or Lesotho of the South. Please don't burn down my house when Civil War II starts, I really like my stuff...

Comment Re:Full circle (Score 1) 69

Really? This tired old joke yet again? You're going with "Computer geeks can't get girls!" in this age when the name "Bill" is almost always followed by "and Melinda"? When Mark Zuckerberg is married, but if he weren't, he could probably walk into a room and pick any girl he wants? When geek girl is the new chic, and the goddess Felicia Day proudly proclaims, "I'm the One That's Cool"?

The 1980s John Hughes geek caricatures called and want their stereotypes back, because I've got news for you: Nowadays, we are the rich and sexually jaded.

Comment Re:Good reason for it to be illegal (Score 1) 383

If you can prove how you voted, to anybody, you can demonstrate to some interested third party that you voted the way they wanted you to. Which means you could sell your vote, or be coerced into voting a certain way.

That's also why any voting proposals that involve a receipt showing that your vote for Smith rather than Jones are a bad idea, as are any proposals involving a way to look up your own vote online after the election.

You're right, that is a good reason, and as I sit here, I can't say that I hope they change the law. There's too much opportunity for employers to, for example, demand that an employee show proof that they voted one way or another or else be fired. (Or vice versa, and be rewarded.)

Nevertheless, if I were to see something like this, I'd willingly break the law and record it. They can charge me if they want to, but it's too important to get the news out that it's happening than to worry about what would probably be a slap on the wrist. Even if I faced major penalties, people are dying for our right to vote, and whatever they charge me with, it would be worth it to do what I can to ensure that that right is not violated.

Since posting his video, he has been contacted by NBC news and other media. His act, although technically illegal, is making a HUGE difference. If it were me, I know I would feel justified in breaking the law. I hope that he feels the same, and that no DA would even think of prosecuting him for anything.

Comment Re:Either? (Score 4, Insightful) 707

I don't have time for a longer reply, but for what it's worth, the way Ron Paul and his supporters are treated within the Republican party disgusts me. Still, I admire Paul for sticking it out and trying to change the party from within. The second he leaves the party, he loses any political clout he ever would hope to enjoy. My sincere hope is that at some point, the Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters, who I believe to be extremely similar politically, can get together and suppress all of the religious nutcases who have stolen the party. Because if that doesn't happen, I honestly think that sometime within the next 20-30 years, the Republican party will effectively be dead except in local elections. As a Democrat that doesn't bother me too much, but as an American, I don't like the idea of one party having unfettered control over the system.

And yes, I do (for the most part) believe in Barack Obama as a candidate. I'm not just voting for the lesser of two evils; I honestly believe that he has made significant strides in making the country a better place. I honestly believe that he could have done even better--and thus we could all be even better off--had Republicans worked with him instead of stating from day one that their top political objective is to get him out of office. Still, given what he had to work with, I think he had made some amazing accomplishments and that history will judge him as one of our best presidents.

Comment Re:Either? (Score 1) 707

The only way to truly waste a vote is to vote for a candidate you don't really believe in.

I see this a lot, but I wholeheartedly disagree. No candidate will ever agree 100% with your stance on every single issue. As a result, you will always be compromising on something. And contrary to what the Libertarians and Green parties try to convince everyone if, very rarely do the two main parties represent some vast gulf between what almost everyone wants to see.

Personally, I'm a Democrat. Does that mean that I'm lockstep in line with President Obama's agenda? No, I don't like how he has expanded the drone program, and I don't like how he has carried forth the culture of absolutely secrecy on so much that the government does. However, one most things I consider vitally important to the health and well-being of the country, I do agree with him. I believe that if he is re-elected president, on the whole, we will be better off in four years than we are today. THAT is my goal, not to petulantly demand everything I want out of a candidate.

Long term, I am hoping that we can change the party itself to be better. When I think of President Clinton (who I liked and respect very much) signing NAFTA, DOMA, and things like the CDA, it makes me realize that we have already progressed since the 1990s when he was in office. With some effort, hopefully in 2016, 2020, and beyond, we can elect people who are even more progressive than Obama.

That is the ultimate goal: not to throw away my vote on someone who can't possibly win because I demand that they cater to my exact stance on every issue, but to change the party I support to better reflect where I want the country to go. Because to be blunt, the two mainstream parties don't give a rat's ass when people throw away their votes on non-viable third-party candidates. For all of the sound and fury it generates at the time, ultimately it signifies nothing. They're under no illusion that things will ever change in that respect.

If Libertarians were smart, instead of throwing their weight behind Gary Johnson, they would be trying to take the Republican party back from the Christian fundamentalist right-wing extremists who demand that their candidates support violating the basic human rights of women, worshiping a specific god, legislating morality, etc. Their complete abandonment of the political process as it practically exists today in the misguided notion that they can create a viable third party is one of the reasons we're in this mess right now, with one party that's exceedingly good at getting people to vote against their own self-interest with a considerable amount of power. Believe me, as a Democrat, I wish that they would get back to their roots of fiscal responsibility and individual liberty. At least if they won, I wouldn't fear for the continued existence of our country.

Comment Re:Who cares? (Score 1) 417

why do we keep calling tablets "ipad knockoffs" you DO know that tablets existed for a good 10 years before the ipad do you not?

Not only that, but the Android tablets I have kick the crap out of iPads. I also think that it's interesting that Apple is now going to come out with a 7" tablet after the Kindle Fire and Asus Nexus 7 have been proven to hit a sweet spot in the market. Look at who is making ripoffs now...

Comment Re:Consultants are not the devil (Score 5, Insightful) 286

I don't think the kind of consultant you are talking about and the kind of consultant referred to in the summary are the same kind of consultant:

Teams of consultants from McKinsey and Boston Consulting Group are reportedly swarming headquarters to advise the CEO Rory Read...

These are the kind of consultants that tell the CEO that he doesn't need those expensive engineers with health benefits and unemployment insurance. For a reasonable fee (that will end up costing AMD even more money in the long run), these consultants will be able to bring in some of their company's other consultants and not have to worry about silly little things like benefits, thus reducing costs. For the next financial quarter or two--certainly long enough to cash out your stock options and find another job at a company that will pay you more because of your success here--it's win-win!

Comment How about laying off the consultants instead? (Score 4, Insightful) 286

How about laying off the consultants instead?

I'm serious. Consultants are nothing but leeches, and they will almost always give you advice on how you can make your company just like every other company in your industry. I yearn for the days when companies looked for ways to set themselves apart, to stand out from the crowd, instead of trying desperately to follow lockstep in line with everyone else. Other companies have massive layoffs, so hey, let's do it too!

Especially the engineers. You need engineers to keep doing what you do. This really bodes badly for AMD, because without engineers, they're basically slitting their company's wrists. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that they're getting rid of the ones with seniority at that to try to save a few bucks on salary while simultaneously bleeding themselves out of knowledge and experience.

But hey, it's their funeral, so whatever gets the stock price up a little bit so that they can cash out their options, right?

Comment Re:Tax plan-- please explain it to me. (Score 1) 698

Public education? Some of the content does that, but a lot of it is very partisan.

...Says someone who probably thinks that Fox News is "Fair and Balanced." MSNBC? THAT is partisan. Fox News? THAT is partisan. People who think that PBS is partisan either don't watch PBS or they consider stuff like teaching evolution as a commie takeover of education. They think that factual reporting is partisan if it's inconvenient to their position. Did you watch PBS during, say, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal? I did, and believe me, they were not cheerleaders. The news shows are as objective as any I've seen, with the possible exception of some international news sources aren't aren't so U.S.-centric. In fact, they're so objective that a lot of people don't like watching their news shows due to the lack of excitement that comes from injecting partisan politics into the stories like most other news networks do. Some of us like getting news from a source that isn't beholden to corporations and that depend on sensationalist ratings for their monetary lifeblood.

They claim to be non-partisan because they don't accept advertising, which is rediculoust. At this point, I'd rather they get off the government teat and run ads.

And this is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever read. Like I said, you stop giving oil companies subsidies and tax breaks, raise the capital gains rate, increase the top marginal income tax rate, cut defense spending, and then we can start talking about getting people off the government teat. Otherwise, shut the hell up and leave the federal subsidy to public broadcasting alone.

Oh wait that's right, it's only the government teat when it's services for the poor and middle class, isn't it?

Comment Re:Tax plan-- please explain it to me. (Score 3, Insightful) 698

Romney doesn't call for NPR, actually PBS, to be eliminated,

He is calling for public subsidies to public broadcasting to be eliminating. This includes both PBS and NPR.

...he thinks there is no reason for the Federal government to supply it with 12% of its budget.

...And he's wrong. There is an excellent reason for the Federal government to supply them with money. These stations are non-profits specifically dedicated to public education. I get so sick of this attitude that it's not government's job to promote the general welfare of this country. Go re-read the Constitution sometime, it's in the first sentence.

Public radio and public television have done more to educate pre-schoolers than any other education program. Here's a list of bullet points that I ran across recently:

  • PBS is the number one source of media content for pre-school teachers.
  • The American public has named PBS the most trusted public institution for nine consecutive years.
  • Children who watched Sesame Street in pre-school spend more time reading for fun in high school and obtain higher grades in English, math, and science.
  • Kids who played the Martha Speaks app for two weeks had a 31% gain in vocabulary tested.
  • Last year, PBS offered more than 500 hours of arts and cultural programming watched by more than 121 million people.
  • While the federal appropriation equals about 15% of the system's revenue, that's an aggregate number. For many PBS stations, including those that serve people who may need it most, this counts for as much as 50%.

...And there were a few other bullet points, but you get the idea. Whether you're on the left or the right of center, almost everyone agrees that PBS and NPR are worthwhile.

But if you cut the federal subsidy, the end result is that a lot of the smaller stations serving poorer areas that can't raise as much money as those in more prosperous areas will go under. Of course, that seems to be the MO of Republicans these days--we want all of our benefits, and to hell with the poor people.

If the Federal government no longer provides PBS with 12% of its budget, what happens? It either finds someone else to replace that money, or it continues to operate at 88% of current funding.

As I said above, a lot of stations in poorer areas will go under. You seem to be under the impression that anyone who wants to can just cut their budget by 12%. If you're decently well-off, you probably can, but this is why people like me get so frustrated. You have no idea what it's like when people tell you, "Just cut 12%!" when you're barely scraping by.

So, your post is not only wrong, but grossly misleading. That is pretty much the picture for the rest of your post - false or misleading, at best. I don't know who finds that "informative", but you obviously duped someone.

No, the only thing that's misleading is your attempt to justify Romney's brilliant plan to solve our budget problems by eliminating the government subsidy to PBS and NPR. It will most definitely kill its availability in a lot of areas, especially more rural communities and poor communities, the very places where it's needed most.

You've also effectively proved yet again why people like me get so frustrated at Republicans. Look, I understand we have a large deficit. I'm not oblivious to the fact that we're overspending in this country. But why is Romney picking on public broadcasting? I've heard the rationale that, well, you have to go after everything--everyone has to tighten their belts. But it's just awful convenient that to Republicans, everyone having to tighten their belts means that poor and middle class people, people who disproportionately use public services, have to tighten their belt, but rich people get yet more tax breaks and benefits.

If Romney/Ryan are serious about cutting the budget deficit, why aren't things like cutting subsidies to the oil industry on the table? Why aren't things like increasing the capital gains tax on the table? Why aren't things like raising the top marginal income tax rate to 39% on the table? Why aren't things like cutting defense spending on the table? Why is it that only programs that benefit the poor and middle class are being cut?

And before you feed me this line about "job creators" bullshit, please remember that I'm not as stupid as your standard Republican who votes against their own economic self-interest because they think that God wants them to. I watched George W. Bush systematically cut taxes throughout his presidency and we see how well that helped the job creators--by the end of his second term, we were losing almost a million jobs every single month. If you honestly believe that bullshit, then why is it that taxes are now at rates lower than they've been since the 1940s, yet unemployment is higher? The answer, of course, is that those so-called "job creators" aren't actually creating jobs, and it has not one damn thing to do with tax rates. (And before you shove polls in my face, make no mistake--I know that companies are saying that, but as has been demonstrated by the steep tax cuts/unemployment rate, it's not actually true.) Instead, the "job creators" are taking those tax windfalls and funneling it directly into the pockets of the rich.

So please, stop with this idiotic notion that cutting PBS and NPR is going to help solve our budget problems. Or better yet, I'll tell you what, I am not an unreasonable person willing to compromise. You agree to some of the things mentioned above--cutting corporate subsidies, raising the capital gains tax rate, raising the top income marginal income tax rate, cutting defense spending--and then I'll agree to put funding PBS and NPR back on the table for cuts. It's not tightening our belts that I object to, it's how Republicans only want to tighten the belts of the poor and middle class. When you actually make some genuine effort to tighten everyone's belt, then maybe we can talk.

By the way, this whole sequestration thing is an excellent example of Republican double standards. To kick the can down the road, they agreed to across-the-board spending cuts. Hey, it's only fair, right? And like good little playmates, they came together with their Democrat colleagues and agreed that both had skin in the game and would lose out if they couldn't reach an agreement later and it came to that. But now, Republicans are trying to weasel out of their end of the sequestration bargain to cut defense. Yeah, they're always, "Cut, cut, CUT! Make government smaller! Waaaah!" as long as it's the poor and middle class that are impacted. As soon as their rich fat cat buddies might have to suffer a little bit though, WHOA! Hold the phone! You're killing jobs! Which, of course, is a bunch of bullshit, and I'm sick of it.

So yeah, come back when Romney comes tells us how he and his rich buddies are going to have to suffer a little bit for the bad economy, to tighten their belts. Until then, though, shut the hell up and leave the federal subsidy to public broadcasting alone--or better yet, increase it, since it's already been cut to the bone over the years, and it's demonstrably fulfilling its Constitutionally mandated purpose of promoting the general welfare of our country.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!

Working...