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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Missed the Boat (Score 2) 250

As a related aside - can anyone tell me if there's a way to get google to recognize you as country-agnostic? I still get localized information when I go there, even not signed on. I'd love to know if there were a way to get around that, so I get all the search results from every part of the globe....

Try Duck Duck Go, which is a very simple search engine along the lines of what Google used to be. They proudly proclaim the fact that they neither track you nor alter your search results based on your location or history.

Comment Re:Police Ssurveillance (Score 1) 761

This doesn't require an officer or a police car - it is a cheap piece of equipment that can be produced and purchased in large quantities. The only limit to the ability of the police to surveil the citizenry would be limited only by the procurement budget, and would be far less limited than it is today. Further, these devices are easily concealed, whereas a police car, even an unmarked one, is far harder to hide. Essentially these devices give the police nigh-infinite, limitless, covert surveillance capabilities.

Comment Re:Incorrect? (Score 1) 297

Well, I didn't say that you had the reading skills of a five-year-old, but as you just demonstrated that you do, I'll let that claim stand. I have already successfully dismantled each and every one of the points in your post. I wasn't sure about it - I had actually started rebutting some of them - but then I realized that I had, indeed, already answered every single one of those points. Go ahead and check if you don't believe me. At this point you're arguing in circles and chalking my unwillingness to bow to your refusal to face the facts to... male stupidity? Astounding. Truly astounding. It seems fairly obvious that you just Can't Understand Normal Thinking. I think my work here is done.

Comment Re:Incorrect? (Score 1) 297

Botanically tomatoes are fruits - I have never argued this, and it is in fact part of the point that I initially raised - but here are just a few sources that back me up. As you can see, legally and culinarily speaking, there are a whole hell of a lot of people who consider a tomato a vegetable. This is a fact. This is inarguable. All of your "technically"s aren't going to change this. This is the point that I initially made, this is the point that I have continued to make, and this is the point that you have continued to deny in the face of overwhelming evidence. My ego is not particularly connected to what people think of tomatoes. Maybe you, on the other hand, should consider why yours is so connected to putting on blinders and denying simple facts as they are.

Comment Re:Incorrect? (Score 1) 297

Walk into any restaurant today and ask for a fruit salad. Tell me how many serve you one that contains tomatoes and cucumbers.
The simple fact is that enough people calling a tomato a vegetable does, for all intents and purposes, mean that a tomato is considered a vegetable. You know why? Because of the point that I keep bringing up: nobody gives a flying fuck about the biological function of a piece of food. A word's meaning is whatever people make it; that's the way language works. If eaters, who vastly outnumber botanists, want to call tomatoes a vegetable, who are you to tell them that they are wrong? You're tilting at windmills. You can sit in your lab all day and wax scientific about how fruits are ovaries and that is just wonderful for you, but the simple fact is that when a chef asks you to hand him some vegetables he sure as shit means those cucumbers and tomatoes and peppers sitting right there, and when the people in the restaurant order grilled vegetables that is exactly what they expect. No amount of hooting about the deficit (wtf?) is going to change the fact that you're clearly a terrible cook.

Comment Re:Incorrect? (Score 1) 297

I can see I won't get through to you, most likely because you are being deliberately obtuse through obstinacy. Congratulations, you have the arguing skills of a five year old. On reading this, I fully expect you to put your hands on your hips and pout.
Repeat after me: Culinarily speaking, nobody gives a shit what the biological function of an ingredient is. What people care about is its flavor profile and with what ingredients it mixes well.
Hell, even the government considers them vegetables. Face it. Your opinion on this matter is irrelevant.

Slashdot Top Deals

We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"