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. ×

Comment You're a blatant champion of reading-abstinence (Score 1) 534

Article-reading abstinence isn't the answer! This is a perfect case in point, where practicing abstinence with regard to reading the article, simply adds noise to the discussion, and makes it so that many of the people who did read the article, now think you are totally retarded fuckwit since apparently you can't remember anything for even a few seconds.

To me, this obviously isn't true. I personally think you only said such a mind-boggling stupidly-retarded numbskulled thing, simply because of your agenda of cultivating your ignorance, not because of a memory failure. You didn't forget what the article said; you never read it in the first place! But nooo, not everyone is going to believe that, so now we're going to have to have a digression into why you blather empty-headed idiocy like a brain-damaged imbecil whose mother drank too much when she was pregnant.

And one of the arguments the Indy1-is-a-retarded-fuckwit camp is going to say, is that even if you shot your mouth off due to not reading the article, practicing abstinence when it comes to reading, is itself something that only a retarded fuckwit would do. So they're going to say you're a retarded fuckwit regardless of whether the failure is in your memory, vs your desire to remain stupid. Now your defenders (people such I myself) are put on the spot, having to explain that maybe there is some kind of non-stupid merit to stupidity.

And I don't have any fucking idea how to argue that. Do you? (Think of what your dull-witted shit-for-brains comment has just done to your friends here.)

Don't you see how "why does Indy1 say such insipid, half-baked nonsense?" is just going to turn into the stupidest flamewar ever, on par with the level of stupidity of your own speech?

You can prevent this. It turns out that it is easy to avoid saying amazingly stupid things like mentioning the Ford/Nixon thing that the article addresses: just READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE first.

I wonder if maybe there is a way to put on some kind of mental condom, if you have to. Could you maybe have knowledge of the article on hand when you comment on the article, but then forget it later? If you can do that, it might offer most of the advantages of reading-abstinence, while also preventing shockingly-moronic statements which leave us all guessing as to why you say say such stupid things.

Comment Re:never gave them credit card number (Score 1) 236

What's this "your data" thing? AFAICT we're talking about peoples' game identity, right? e.g. if you get locked out of your Google Play account, then maybe you lose control of your Clash of Clans base and have to start over.

Yes, that sucks insofar as how much you value grind-progress in a game, and I understand that can be a quasi-real thing that people get attached to, so I'm not going to dickishly blow it off.

But calling it "your data" is kind of stretching things. My data is on my computers' disks, not Google's.

Comment Re:Dear music industry.. (Score 1) 86

Just because they have it, they have no obligation to sell it.

They wouldn't, but one might argue that the entire intent of copyright is to get them to provide it.

And then if they chose to publish in a country which has copyright, then they become obligated, whereas prior to publishing, they were not obligated. They accepted the deal and have benefited from government-granted privilege. It's too late for backsies.

Comment Trump won but he's still Our Bitch (Score 2) 173

Actually, wait a minute. It makes sense, but it has jack shit to do with the electoral college nonsense.

The day before the election, there was one thing that every one of us knew: whoever won, would not have the support anywhere close to half of the country. Had Clinton won, nobody would be kissing her ass either, you know.

One of the very best reasons to vote for Trump, was to try to prevent Clinton from becoming president. Just as the best reason to vote for Clinton was to prevent Trump from becoming president. I realize people in those camps might have had other reasons for voting the way they did, but they were a minority. (Don't blame me; I voted for Johnson. I tried to help both efforts and also get a great president too. Yeah, call me unrealistically greedy.)

As it happens, one of the efforts failed and the other succeeded. But let's not pretend that plenty of people who voted for Trump weren't gagging as they did it. You damn well know it's true, just as there was plenty of Clinton-voter vomit found in the voting booths also.

Everyone needs to keep the same attitude that they had when they thought Clinton was going to win: president-elect, you're our bitch. The president is still going to be our bitch, and nobody should forget that. Getting the election results didn't change that.

Issue orders. Everyone should be issuing orders. The Clinton/Trump president-elect, who we now just call Trump, is going to have to do a lot to start getting credit with anyone.

And anyone who thinks this is arrogant, either isn't American or needs to take a deep breath. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, Americans, but do this: take a deep breath and then say, "The government is my bitch. The government will always be The People's Bitch. That is what America is." Just say it. It's not as flowery as what Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1776 but it's shorter and easier to memorize. Go on, do it. Let it be your new Pledge of Allegiance if it isn't already.

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 108

"So what?!" Entire web stores were down for several hours to deal with the bans. You can think you have done everything right, have all the "nines" you want, and then something totally silly can still take down your site.

Maybe it's not a big deal to you for a store to be down (me neither, since I don't happen to work there or own a piece of the business), but think about the reason it happened and the lack of limits to government power, which allowed it to happen. You also point out that it can be downloaded, but if you can take a store offline to deal with the fact that a book is for sale, then the very same justification could be used for taking away access to the Internet for the same reason. And this is in UK, where there's already shitloads of precedent for limiting Internet access. You laugh, but they literally try to go that far for other kinds of information.

Instead of saying "so what?" put this in your file of reasons for UK citizens to enact something like US' First Amendment. Even basic human rights issues aside, what happened is just plain wasteful. Even our uncaring plutocratic robot overlords would see the advantages in outlawing book bans.

Comment Why have states? (Score 1) 1081

Do you want states to elect presidents, or do you want people to do it? Does the president represent the people, or the states?

Since you're a person, I can guess your answer to that! But I'm asking anyway, because I'm going to what-if the "you're a person" part.

Suppose you were a state. Step into those meta-shoes. Might your opinion be different? You might say, "Here I am, n million people. I should have n million votes, exactly twice as many votes as that guy over there who has n/2 people." Ok, that makes sense too, right?

But now look at it from the PoV of the guy who is the n/2-people state. He has half as many people, but nearly the same amount of overhead forced upon him due to being a state, amortized over fewer people. He has to have his own legislature, governor, etc. He's going want more than half as much representation (power) as you, just to cover his additional costs. And his case is pretty good, isn't it?

The only way to remove the discrepancy is to get rid of states. And since every conceivable economic activity that you can possible imagine is Interstate Commerce, you might be right that there isn't a single power that anyone can think of, which actually does belong to the states. Ever since the 1790s when the constitution was written, states were a totally obsolete idea and it's just that nobody figured it out until WW2. Yet we still have states. Why?

Solve the riddle of the state's purpose and I think you'll solve the riddle of the electoral college's purpose.

Comment Re:One party rule (Score 1) 2837

Killing Obama care. Causing many people to uninsured or under insured.

Everyone keeps forgetting that ObamaCare is a Republican plan. Not only was it their idea, but they sure-as-fuck don't want to be known as the congressperson who voted to take away all their constituents' health insurance. That's how you lose re-election.

They only acted the mock repeals because they knew for sure that they would lose, so there was no danger in angering their constituents. I think you are about to see a serious toning down on the anti-ObamaCare rhetoric by these fakers.

(I'm not saying they won't find plenty of ways to piss you off, but I really don't think this is one of them.)

Comment Re:People are not logical (Score 1) 436

If Trump is wrong then you are just as wrong.

Isn't that his point? He (and I won't even tell you if I'm talking about GP or Trump) has tied two totally-unrelated things together, in a reasonable and plausible-sounding way. If anyone is listening to one of these arguments, the other argument is just as good. OTOH if you're smart enough to call bullshit on one of them, the other one's bullshit leaps out at you, too.

There's some evidence that because illegal aliens are much harder to track that the crimes they commit are underreported and they are not properly prosecuted for their crimes. That's undeniable.

Great example! You have just stated a very plausible-sounding idea. A non-critical reader wouldn't bother to check, and wouldn't be likely to notice that the "there is evidence" part of your example statement is just as bogus as the rest. Once someone starts pulling things out of their ass, they can pull support out of their ass too. Why merely lie when you can elaborately lie? Have your bogus PGP key be signed by lots of other bogus keys. It looks more "genuine" that way.

At this level of discussion, we've moved beyond how we normally solve real-world problems, and into faith-based discussions, countering religious preaching with religious preaching, contests in who best presses the emotional buttons of their audience, or .. to boil it down to a single word: art! Who doesn't seriously ENJOY that? I know I do.

Comment "Fake Stories" (Score 1) 436

WTF is a "fake story?" Is The Lord of the Rings one of the fake ones or one of the real ones?

People believe stupid shit, and they also believe plausible-but-incorrect shit. Just say that.

Implying that stories come in two categories sounds like something a media company would say, to make you think they are somehow better than everyone else. Oh wait .. turns out the bullshit words are from this "bgr.in" rather than Obama himself. Well, isn't that an amazing coincidence?

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 248

This law does not abridge the freedom of speech or the press.

Even with this law, you are still allowed to publish a photograph of a marked ballot. The government is not doing anything to interfere with that. All they're saying, is that you can't take the photograph at the voting place.

You can take your photo in front of a waving American flag, while a marine salutes a passing eagle, from atop of a majestic purple mountain overlooking a plain of wheat. You can take your photo in front of a burning cross, where a close view of the ballot reveals the circles are filled with little swastikas. You can take the photo in your special effects studio, showing Neal Armstrong placing your ballot on a pole on the moon. You can take the photo in a meticulously-detailed Hollywood set that was made to look exactly like your neighborhood highschool gym where the actual voting happens, with a bunch of extras standing in lines waiting to "vote" in the background. You can fake your photo with CGI. Whatever speech you want to make, won't be interfered with. Any political statement that you can possibly imagine, remains legal and completely unthreatened by this law.

The only catch, is that everyone will know that your speech was merely your speech, that it wasn't necessarily a depiction of objective truth. But that's the nature of all speech anyway, so it's not even a real "catch." Truth is not expression: that's why nobody can copyright facts themselves.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Damn-fucking right! *high five* If anyone ever tries to shut you up, all Americans agree to stand by your side and work with you, in killing the offender and putting his head on a pike as a warning to other would-be tyrants.

Slashdot Top Deals

No line available at 300 baud.

Working...