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


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

Comment Re:Elephant in the room (Score 1) 263

The "every small part you ever need at your fingertips at home" revolution didn't happen.... or maybe hasn't happened yet.

But 3D printing is definitely revolutionary in the business world. People are just figuring out how to use the technology now, but it is already having an impact at the very high end... like SpaceX making parts of their super-draco engines with 3D printing. Or 3D printed automotive parts.

Sure, we don't have laser-sintered makerbots available for $75 that can print any tool or part you need in your garage.... but it isn't like 3D printing is a bust.

Comment Re:Surprised they aren't doing this already (Score 1) 586

I concur. The "because Trump" part is just plain silly projection.

But I was quite surprised to learn that they don't have a multi-continent presence. I would have assumed they had multiple copies located all around the globe. It is a pretty huge site with what I would assume is a large volume of traffic from around the globe.

Comment Re:fallacy, poindexter (Score 1) 123

You got to download drivers and run your wares?


Why, back in my day we had to type our wares in from Compute's Gazette. And we didn't have a tape drive either! No, we had to put a sign on the keyboard that said "do not touch". Then we could run our wares..... if we were lucky!

Comment Re: Fake News? (Score 1) 624

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about with "confirmation bias".

They all worked at CNN, ABC, CBS, PBS etc. They went to form their own network because they perceived a bias around them (and a business opportunity because of an unmet need). They said this is what they were doing and why they were doing it. And there had long been calls that the TV press corps was left-biased.

But you chose to ignore all of that and say nah, nothing was really biased until after Fox.

That's just straight confirmation bias. Back when Fox came out the press was voting 90+% Democrat. You aren't going to get much more of an objective proxy than that for what their personal biases are.

Now, I don't think anyone can argue with a straight face that the media hasn't become even more biased in the last 20 years. And it would be hard to argue that Fox isn't in the center of that change, along with characters like Limbaugh, Air America, Huffington Post, Drudge..... and yes, MSNBC and CNN. But that doesn't change the reality that was 3.5 network channels of news coverage.

Comment Re: Fake News? (Score 1) 624

I blame Rupert Murdoch for that. CNN's bias was a direct response to Fox News bias. Prior to that, they were neutral. At some point, somebody wrongly concluded that the only way to fight bias was with opposite bias, rather than with accuracy.

Ever heard of confirmation bias?

When Fox News launched, they explicitly stated that they were creating their news operation to counter the bias of CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and PBS. That was their entire schtick. That's where the whole "Fair and Balanced" tag came from. And they knew of what they spoke, as they all came from those networks.

What Fox news really is, or what it evolved into might be open for discussion, but it would be hard to peg CNN's biased coverage on a network that sprang forth in an attempt to exploit the bias of CNN et. al.

Comment Re:Fishing Expedition (Score 2) 124

US Constitution, Fourth Amendment.

Keep reading. Let us know when you get to #16.

So, let's see what it says.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So they can levy an income tax. And they don't have to give any of it to the states. And they don't have to worry about any head counts. But there's nothing in there about exemptions from 4th amendment protections.

So let's take a look at that 4th amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]"

So if you wanna demand access to someone's person, house, papers or effects, you gotta show probable cause which is supported by Oath or affirmation and describing a particular place to be searched and the particular person or thing to be seized. And no, shoving "income tax enforcement" in front of the request doesn't seem to be a reasonable substitute.

But you are right in that the government has repeatedly exempted itself from having to follow the constitution - on this particular issue and many others. And by that I mean in all likelihood they'll be turning over the info the government wants.

Comment Re:Don't read political spin, it makes you stupid. (Score 1) 469

Sorry to get back to you so late, but I thought you might be interested in the further backstory you are referencing.

The "obscure paper" isn't Newsweek, it is the Russian rag "Sputnik". Their writer (a dude from Arizona) made the initial mistake confusing Bloomenthal and Eichenwald. You see, Bloomenthal quoted an Eichenwald article in his email.

Probably some staffer had an alert set for wikileaks news and grabbed the article off of google or yahoo news.

So Newsweek's article is part of the spin. Manufacturing conspiracies instead of crediting incompetence.

Here's a decent breakdown of the various players and events that led to the dually incorrect spin narratives. (It is a fair demonstration of the power of confirmation bias and "team" thinking that one simple misunderstanding of an email lead to two erroneous and conflicting spin machines)

Comment Re:Don't read political spin, it makes you stupid. (Score 1) 469

The discussion in this sub-thread is "don't read political spin, it makes you stupid".

You seem to believe "my team's spin isn't stupid". It is. Everyone's team's spin is stupid. There doesn't have to be a conspiracy for a political candidate to pick up a negative story about his opponent and run with it, even if it is wrong. If you think that is evidence that Trump is a puppet of Russia, you are drinking the cool-aid. He might be a Russian mole.... but picking up a story from some obscure paper that fits your narrative so you can criticize an opponent.... not exactly evidence.

As to the connection to political violence... the narrative from the Clinton campaign was that Trump was fomenting violence from his supporters at his rallies. We now know that the disruptions at his campaign events were at least in part from paid operatives in coordination with the Clinton campaign. So don't believe the political spin. It makes you stupid.

Besides, I don't see how anyone can credit Trump with being smart enough to pull off some grand conspiracy to coordinate with the Russians. From what I can tell he's too dumb to make toast.

Comment Don't read political spin, it makes you stupid. (Score 5, Informative) 469

Here's what they really had to say:

Russia said that it talked with the teams of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during the U.S. presidential election as part of routine outreach during a campaign.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the Russian embassy in the U.S. held talks with the Trump camp that “were on a sufficient, responsible level.” Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Trump, said in an e-mail that she was “not aware” of any meetings by campaign representatives with Russian diplomats.
Ryabkov said the talks were “part of routine everyday work.” There was also “sporadic” contact with the Clinton team, though it was “not always productive,” he said. Calls to members of Clinton’s former campaign team for comment weren’t immediately returned.

Comment Re:Oh drop it already (Score 3, Informative) 822

Intent is not a factor for conviction.

Actually, for most crimes and for most of our history, intent, or mens rea has been a vital component of criminal convictions. Only regulatory infractions don't require mens rea, or at least that was the case until recently. Congress has been creating "strict liability" crimes for some time now. This has been a big issue with civil libertarian types. I think it started with things like statutory rape and kiddie porn... but it has spread pretty far afield.

The irony is that in this particular case... in the case of the law that Comey was citing, mens rea is not a factor. It specifically excludes intent in the statute. A fact that has been pointed out repeatedly by partisans and legal pedants.

Comment Re:You mean as he goes around rallying for her? (Score 2) 822

Then you have not been paying attention for the last 60 years.

Every single election, the democrats trot out their army of race-baiters to gin up energy in their base. Every single election they allege "voter suppression" efforts are keeping minorities from the polls. Every election year any traffic accident or road construction in a minority neighborhood is touted as a Republican conspiracy to suppress the minority vote.

They just use different language. Instead of "rigged", use the words "voter suppression". Here's Huffpo from the 2012 cycle with a top ten list. Here's the Brennan Center from 2008. Here's the Daily Kos covering 2000-2006.

So no, there is no partisan ownership of "rigged election" or "voter fraud". Both parties are fully willing to use this sort of rhetoric to gin up their base. Both parties are perfectly willing to use whatever tool they can grab to gain an upper hand. If that means getting people all riled up about stolen elections, then so be it. If that means falsely accusing people of racism, well, this ain't softball, kid.

And no, talking about rigging elections isn't exclusively tinfoil hat conspiracy theory nuttery. Many serious historians will opine that the election of JFK over Nixon was due to a few fraudulent precincts. Here's a sample from the Wiki, just to appease those who like to ask for citations

Kennedy won Illinois by less than 9,000 votes out of 4.75 million cast, or a margin of 0.2%.[43] However, Nixon carried 92 of the state's 101 counties, and Kennedy's victory in Illinois came from the city of Chicago, where Mayor Richard J. Daley held back much of Chicago's vote until the late morning hours of November 9. The efforts of Daley and the powerful Chicago Democratic organization gave Kennedy an extraordinary Cook County victory margin of 450,000 votes—more than 10% of Chicago's 1960 population of 3.55 million,[49] although Cook County also includes many suburbs outside of Chicago's borders—thus barely overcoming the heavy Republican vote in the rest of Illinois. Earl Mazo, a reporter for the pro-Nixon New York Herald Tribune, investigated the voting in Chicago and "claimed to have discovered sufficient evidence of vote fraud to prove that the state was stolen for Kennedy."[43]

So allegations of rigged elections and voter fraud go back as far as democracy, I'd suppose. And no, it isn't just people on the other team who claim such things.

Comment Summary picked the wrong article to copy (Score 5, Informative) 1028

The Telegraph article got the details wrong. Check out the RT version instead.

It is a 100+ ton missile that can carry about 10 tons of payload. They are also designing a new warhead that is maneuverable in order to avoid anti-missile defenses. They are claiming that it can hold 10 heavy warheads or 16 light warheads and/or a combination of warheads and decoys/countermeasures.

The whole "destroy an area the size of France or Texas isn't clear, but this is a missile announcement, not a warhead announcement, so they are probably talking about the area which could be covered in a single launch. I.E. one spread of warheads from a single launch could theoretically hit Paris, Barcelona and Milan. That would be pretty hard for anti-missile defenses to deal with.

Slashdot Top Deals

Can't open /usr/games/lib/fortunes.dat.