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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Seems like improvement... (Score 2, Insightful) 162

acrimonious relationship between the intelligence community and President Donald Trump

Yeah, stop leaking the White House staff's communications to press, you "Deep Throat" wannabes...

said he was stunned by the caliber of the would-be recruits [applying for private sector jobs -mi]

This part, actually, sounds great — consumer's technology gets a chance to improve beyond the government's ability to spy on us.

And not just American Government's — by far the most benign of the three — that of Russia and China as well.

Submission + - Weaponized Narrative Is the New Battlespace

Rocky Mudbutt writes: Weaponized Narrative Is the New Battlespace and the U.S. is in the unaccustomed position of being seriously behind its adversaries.

An article from defenseone makes the point that we are shifting to a post-factual world.

Far from being simply a U.S. or U.K. phenomenon, shifts to âoepost-factualismâ can be seen in Poland, Hungary, Turkey, France, and the Philippines, among other democracies. Russia, whose own political culture is deeply post-factual and indeed post-modern, is now ably constructing ironic, highly cynical, weaponized narratives that were effective in the Ukrainian invasion, and are now destabilizing the Baltic states and the U.S. election process.

This comes from:

  • Brad Allenby Co-director of The Weaponized Narrative Initiative
  • Joel Garreau Co-director of The Weaponized Narrative Initiative

Comment There is competition and it is vicious (Score 0) 158

Kamel: "Competitors? You had the business model in your hands you could have the prices you want but you choose to buy everybody a ride."

What? That's just idiotic. Of course, Uber had competition — even before the rise of Lyft, they had taxis to compete with. And, in some cities, the "limos" or "black cars".

Personally, I forswore Uber, when they hired David Plouffe — the jerk, that helped impose an incompetent nincompoop on our country for eight years — who started spamming the customers (such as myself) with bullshit like how "Uber helps minority drivers" (I imagine, it must've been a hit with the pro-Obama crowd!) So, from then on I always start with Lyft, when searching for a ride.

But now, seeing this evident ganging-up on Uber, maybe, I'll try to use them first again...

Comment Re:Spin it properly (Score 0) 221

So what, why do you care who marries who?

I don't think, I said, I care, who marries who. Only that the word "marriage", after meaning one thing for thousands of years, changed meaning in a matter of a decade.

Words change meaning all the time, why pick on just one?

My very point in this subthread was, the meaning of the term "chicken" can change — with an even greater speed, than what the term "marriage" already displayed. You seem to agree with that... So, why are you changing the subject to my opinion on homosexuality — which I haven't expressed and don't particularly care to discuss?

If you want to reduce gay sex [...] youre probaby just a religious homophobe

Whah? What in the word lead you to either of these conclusions?

Comment Re:Spin it properly (Score -1, Troll) 221

The ancient term "marriage" was a euphemism for "chattel," as you well know.

No, I do not know that. On the contrary, I am pretty sure, it never meant that. For example, whichever variant of the vows I look at, I do not see any asymmetry. Who owns who?

But that's all besides the point. "Chattel" or "partnership" or whatever, it never meant homosexual. Not in any culture — however tolerant and accepting of the homosexuality itself. It took, as I said, a judicial change of the definition... The English word used to mean one thing, and now it means another.

Comment Systems (Score 4, Interesting) 125

First thing you have to realise is that Systems Exist.
Systems follow very specific laws. The first Law of Systems is that all Systems follow the Law of Self Preservation. The second Law of Systems is that all Systems Fight Against Change within themselves. Systems follow the Law of Structural Conformity. Systems follow the Law of Growth and Development.

1. Systems Exist.
2. Systems Preserve Themselves.
3. Systems Fight Against Change Within.
4. Systems Ensure Structural Conformity.
5. Systems Grow and Develop.

All of these laws of Systems exist only to protect the Systems from being destroyed. Systems do not care about innovation or quality, they care to grow, to protect themselves from change that can cause self destruction, they ensure that all of their internal structures are organized to ensure self preservation, they grow just to become bigger and to have a better chance of survival.

Once you understand this you will understand why it is obvious and expected that systems prevent any type of innovation coming from individuals within the system.

It is also important to understand one more thing: when systems cannot cope with something, they stop it, they may destroy it, but if the fundamentals upon which the system relies are themselves flawed, the system reliance on those fundamentals also makes those systems ultimately vulnerable to destruction.

Comment Re:Huh? Harassment? (Score 1) 303

Make sure your attempt is done in consideration of that, and can't be taken as a threat, otherwise you're walking a fine line of with assault charges.

Sure, sure. But all of this caution should not be necessary — unless you are really threatening. It should not be any easier ruin a man's reputation (and life) with sexual assault accusations, than it is to do the same with any other suspicions of criminality.

And perhaps more importantly to you

Let's not apply the conversation to the present company, shall we? I'm a happy father — of more than one child...

Also, be a F-ing professional and don't shit where you work.

Another strange prohibition. While I agree, that one should not attempt to court anyone below them in a corporate hierarchy (the rule which automatically bans courtship up the same ladder), approaching a colleague may be Ok.

Comment Spin it properly (Score 5, Funny) 221

However, we are concerned by the alleged findings you had conducted

Piffle! That's a totally wrong spin! According to TFA, most of the other 50% is soy — the famously humane and environment-friendly replacement for meat.

Restaurants should proudly admit to being ahead of their customers on both counts — and wow to make their sandwiches 90% meat-free by 2050, or something like that.

Comment Re:Huh? Harassment? (Score 1) 303

Those Cuban fellows have spent their whole lives, from long before puberty, learning how to flirt aggressively and attractively, while picking up the subtle cues that let them know when their attention isn't wanted so they can disengage gracefully and keep the door open for future possibilities. It's a dance to make the Tango look trivial in comparison, and they've been steeping in it their whole lives as a cultural pastime.

Whether the rest of us are able to do it as well as those phenomenal Cubans or not, it can not be illegal (nor even immoral) for us to try.

Which, I believe, was the Anonymous OP's point.

Comment We need to sue all employers (Score 0) 303

I think all employers should be sued for hiring and for firing people as well as for not hiring women or not hiring men, for firing women or for firing men, for hiring / firing that goes against feelings of some, for hiring / firing that goes alone the lines of feelings of some...

Employers in the USA must be really masochistic to continue hiring people, anybody at all, not even just women. Of-course to hire a woman or any other protected class for that matter you have to really have your head checked. Of-course if you do not hire them in some quantity, the government will attack you on that basis.

So you have to hire them and then you have to bear the blunt of the lawsuit your choices are very unpleasant. Hire the women and get a lawsuit. Don't hire the women and get a lawsuit.

That type of a choice is not a choice at all, I give you the third option: don't hire in the USA.

Comment Re:Change the laws together with English (Score 1) 1124

The problem is "race" is such a nebulous term. It has no scientific underpinning

Bullshit. The differences between races, such as susceptibility to certain diseases and ability to digest certain foods is scientifically established. The physical features (round vs. narrow eyes, skin color, hair) are even more self-evident.

None of it is a "social construct"...

Comment Re:Change the laws together with English (Score 1) 1124

You might also want read what Appeal to Authority means, since you clearly don't understand how it works...

Yours was a classic manifestation of the fallacy. To prove your point on changes to language — to support your claim, that the definition of the term "race" changed since 19th century — you appealed to the authority of geneticists...

Comment oh no! (Score 0) 77

Oh no! All the people whose job description is to be 6 feet tall, to lift 100 pounds, to jump 4feet into the air and to be able to travel at 9 miles per hour are no longer economically viable...

Time to upgrade that resume.
Skills: can lift up to 101 pound jump 4 feet 5 inches into the air. Can travel at 9.5 miles her hour. Will cost no more 10% of a robot doing the same thing a year. A bonus feature: can travel at least 30 miles on a single charge!

Slashdot Top Deals

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

Working...