Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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: Dun dun dun (Score 1) 427

What leftist policy is exploiting your position to engage in unwanted pussy-grabbing a reaction to?
What policy is directly inciting his supporters to physical violence against protesters a part of?
Are all Mexicans rapists?

Have large swathes of American citizens been disenfranchised by the political and corporate classes? Yes.
Is Hillary (and in fact almost every Republicrat/Demoblican) a fork-tongued, self-aggrandising sellout to corporate interests? Yes.
Is Donald Trump still a cunt? Yes.
These are not mutually exclusive.

And in case it's not already obvious, the president-elect will undoubtedly prove to be as much of a liar as any of his illustrious predecessors.

There have been recent precedents of iconoclastic demagogues that won power on a wave of popular discontent, that then proved to be as beholden to their true masters as those they deposed. Alexis Tsipras, Greek PM comes to mind.

Comment Re: The value of consensuality (Score 2) 426

Um, no. An unconscious, drunk, drugged or otherwise incapacitated person cannot give consent. The manner in which they became incapacitated is not relevant.
Here's a simple tip. If someone is unconscious, drunk, drugged or incapacitated - don't have sex with them. Simple. And sex with someone who's conscious and willing is more fun. Trust me on this.

If someone runs onto the highway, high as a kite, most drivers would make the effort to try and avoid hitting that person, they wouldn't line them up in the crosshairs and hit the gas. Yes, getting high as a kite and running onto the road is stupid and highly likely to result in death. But deliberately lining someone up in order to run them down is still murder (or possibly manslaughter).

Comment Re: POWAR TO THE PEOPLE! (Score 1) 609

Except that one of the key arguments of the Brexiteers was that the EU has usurped the authority of the British parliament.
The High Court has rightly concluded that the Parliament, being the instrument specifically vested with power on behalf of the electorate (and presumably acting on their behalf) are the correct branch of government to act in this matter. Any other conclusion would allow the executive to trump the will of parliament at any time.
The vote was clearly for Brexit, and Brexit the government will. However there were no consistent positions for the terms of a Brexit that were put to the people. Unless you believe that PM May has the ability to divine those terms on her own.

And if Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson don't like it they they should've fucking stood for the leadership instead of running from what they wrought only to snipe from the sidelines yet again while others clean up after them.

Comment Re: Anyone who voted Obama did just that (Score 1) 412

And don't think for one minute that you can escape your fate by "voting for the other guy". That particular scam is our greatest achievement- the illusion of choice. Whoever you vote for, you will never be rid of us for we are the unelected. Whether you vote for the general, the crook, the farmer, the actor, the oil man, the lawyer, the black man, the orange man or the woman - we decide your fate.

Everything that has transpired has done so according to our design. It is unavoidable. It is your destiny. Young fool! Only now, at the end, do you understand.

Comment Re: I hope Apple Pay will die (Score 3, Informative) 289

It's ironic that you're calling Apple a middle-man when it's actually Google who are inserting themselves as a financial intermediary (were you aware that Google have issued you a virtual credit card?) and knowing every single transaction detail, which of course suits their panopticon business model. There's a reason they're not charging you for that privilege.

Apple are acting as a payment communication medium, keeping no details of your transaction and yes, charging for the privilege. Whether it's worth it is in the eye of the beholder.

This might help explain the differences between the two systems:

Comment Re: I hope Apple Pay will die (Score 5, Informative) 289

I'm sorry but that's just not true.
The two systems are vastly different in implementation. Google are acting as a financial intermediary for every transaction through use of a "virtual credit card" which is what is on your phone and what the vendors see (they never see your actual cards as they are only on Google'a servers). As a result, Google have access and knowledge of every detail of every transaction you make using their system. This aligns with their panopticon business model. By effectively acting as a middleman financial institution they don't need any agreement with banks etc. Every transaction you make actually becomes two 1. Google pays vendor, 2. Google charges your bank.

Apple are not doing this at all, instead they are securely storing your card details on the phone and communicating payment details to and from the vendor and your financial institution. Their system is designed so they don't store your card details nor know about your transactions. However this requires agreement with the financial institutions on the other end.

Slashdot Top Deals

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr