Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Magic Wand (Score 1) 322

It sounds like you're saying that I'm not just speculating on what exactly Trump offered (and I totally admitted that tax breaks, influence in our government, etc were just example ideas, but hey, those are both pretty common ones so they're at least plausible), but that I'm imagining that he offered anything at all.

Is that right? We're not arguing about the details are, but rather, we're arguing that details even exist? I think I'm probably misunderstanding you.

My whole complaint was that the article was vague, saying things like

Taiwan-based Foxconn did not give details of the plan

and

"...we will announce the details of any plans following the completion of direct discussions between our leadership and the relevant U.S. officials," Foxconn said in a statement. "Those plans would be made based on mutually-agreed terms."

and so everyone is going to wonder what Foxconn's terms/details are. But if you needed a citation that there will be terms -- that TANSTAAFL is still a thing in our world -- then I guess the above quotations are the evidence. I cite TFA.

I'm not getting it, am I? What am I not understanding?

Comment Re:Magic Wand (Score 1) 322

Stories are leaving out what concessions Trump offered, which made Foxconn decide that this would be an improvement from the status quo.

The "magic" wand might not be magic at all; maybe it's a tax break or the company gets a free "write whatever law you want, and I promise to sign it" or something like that.

Until we know how the trick works, we're going to be speculating all kinds of crazy things (as I did above). This would be a good job for journalists. You know that once people find out the cost, there's going to be another flamefest about whether the payment was a good idea or a bad one.

Comment Re:"self investigate" == alt.right (Score 1) 779

This labeling pisses me off, because it used to be The Daily Show, SNL's Weekend Update, etc were what "fake news" meant. Fake news just meant satire or hoaxes of exposure done in a certain style.

And not only was the term "fake news" already taken, but also, the stuff we're talking about here already had a name too: "lies."

They're simply lies. WTF was wrong with "lies?" And what was wrong with letting "fake news" keep its meaning? Why fix what isn't broken?

Death to the 2016 meaning of "fake news." Ye Olde English (how people spoke in 2015) was better than this. Yes, language evolves, but it doesn't need to happen this stupidly. This is the kind of crap that makes me think I'm going to have to re-learn what "hacker" means again, in 2017. Hacker: a person who carries a mobile phone.

Comment Re:No different from China (Score 1) 255

Tell me how this is any different than what China does, then. You might as well have a Ministry of Truth.

That's kind of an easy assignment, don't you think?

The Chinese government censors. If you don't use their filters, they view that as circumvention and reserve the right to force you to use the filter.

The listed companies, on the other hand, would use a word like "competition" instead of "circumvention." They totally and completely lack the ability to censor, and in fact don't even have the mindset and attitude for it. They aren't even going to try to censor; they're just announcing a project to make it easier to moderate the content on their own websites.

Just to give you an example, imagine if you posted a comment here on Slashdot that some VP at Twitter didn't like. What would they do about it? Add your name to a list of people whose tweets are shadow-banned? That doesn't help them with your Slashdot comment even a little bit.

Comment Re: and tomorrow (Score 1) 255

Why did it become such a bad thing to express disappointment in a company you support.

I think I just figured out the true controversy here.

The "it's no big deal" people just assume that Facebook is already a company that you don't support. It isn't possible for Facebook to disappoint these people, so they wonder, "why all the bitching? So what if someone added a benzene off-taste to a shit-flavored shake? It's not like you were going to drink it, anyway. The benzene is irrelevant."

But for people who still use Facebook, having it get worse makes things worse. It is possible for Facebook to disappoint these people. They're thinking, "this shake is 90% chocolate with only 10% raw human feces in it. And I don't like the new benzene off-taste they added, which clashes with the fecal flavors."

Comment Re:and tomorrow (Score 1) 255

Except they simply can't effectively censor anything. If spam were an easy problem, it would have been solved in the mid 1990s.

If they really want to try, then Facebook and Twitter are basically non-players in this game, and the ball is in Youtube (Google's) court to expand its malware protection to include brain malware. But if they ever push too hard, people can just use another browser.

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A cucumber is not a vegetable but a fruit.

Working...