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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Wow. (Score 1) 198

who claim that their self diagnosis of Aspbeerger's disease

I must admit that Aspbeeger's is funnier. Given the behavior of some of my party acquaintances who claim their self diagnosis of Aspbeerger's disease somehow makes them cooler, I might call it a better label than Aspberger's. But not in a workplace sensitive to "trigger words".

Comment Re:We never learn do we? (Score 1) 69

The parent comment should be modded up. It may not be "politically correct" from a leftist's perspective, but it is very relevant to this discussion.

Damn, it's completely obvious what a racist tirade against multicuturalism has to do with a zero day involving a Unicode exploit. The next time a cow shits, is that going to be taken as an example of the failings of multiculturalism?

I'm fluent in three languages, so I can appreciate the need for internationalization and localization for those who need it. Nobody is saying internationalization and localization shouldn't be supported. What we're saying is that it should be trivial to disable them when they aren't needed.

No, your parent CLEARLY states, and I quote, "Let's not do the same thing with browsers please.", in an implied response to supporting multiple languages. So not only is your position ridiculous for someone who supposedly knows three languages, a violation of your parent's claims, you didn't even bother to read his fucking message.

For example, I don't know Chinese, and I don't expect to ever learn it. The same goes for Arabic, Korean, Japanese, and the various languages of India that don't use Latin or Latin-like alphabets. I would love to be able to disable these languages in my browser, or at least be given a warning before they're used. Since I don't understand them, there's no legitimate reason for me to ever see content in them, at least not without a warning.

For what benefit? Why should the browser designers add in a layer to check for foreign localization, and store a setting, when the only possible impact is you seeing characters you don't understand? The end result is the same anyway - you'll get an effectively useless webpage. Do you not want to see Chinese characters because they'll steal your job and take your kids or what??? You're proposing a solution that just adds work for everyone else all so you don't have to see scary foreign characters, and it wouldn't even work at all for languages like French or German that use the same character set.

I'd like to take it a step beyond that. I'd like it if my browser could automatically block all content hosted at TLDs or IP addresses associated with third-world ("developing", for the politically correct crowd) nations. After decades of Internet use, I have never had any reason to view content hosted in China, or India, or any African nation. And if I ever did have a legitimate reason to access content from such areas, I would prefer to opt in to viewing it.

Alright. We are going to maintain an international IP address, which apparently we are supposed to update on our own time, to isolate you from the non-specified dangers of China, which means you will no longer be able to use any Amazon or Google instance located their. Oh, and I expect you think this should all be done by somebody else too. You are one of the most childishly self-centered assholes on this page, and a racist one at that (and yes, not wanting to see an African webpage because they're black is racist, and you are on the same level as a white southerner in the 1800's, citing the very same intelligent points - which is to say, none at all).

Disabling text and content from these third-world places wouldn't just make my browsing experience more enjoyable, it would also make it safer. I'd lose out on very little by disabling internationalization and localization, and I'd actually gain a whole lot.

You would gain absolutely nothing. We as a community, however, would gain tremendously, because now we can simply post a Chinese character and we will never again have to worry about you wandering in here.

Comment Re:There must be a mistake ... (Score 1) 312

Google is a company, not a person. They support whoever's in charge, although their employees may be quite liberal overall.

The leadership is quite liberal, and their leadership creates a quite liberal culture at the company. Establishing relationships with Republicans when they are in power does not change this nor contradict this.

Like I said, the employees and leadership might be liberal in their personal beliefs, but it dilutes them being partisan. For example, although they currently support net neutrality, I'd bet my ass they're going to be the first in line if it gets repealed. A partisan group, like for example a lobbying company or whatever, wouldn't switch sides just because the government did - whereas I have no doubts Google will get into bed with the Republicans where it benefits them. I don't see how it's especially hypocritical, all companies are hypocritical. I'm astounded by how many people seem to think they have any purpose beyond enriching and serving themselves, because quite frankly, they don't. Not that that's even always a bad thing, but it is what it is.

Comment Re: ATTN: Potential New Hires (Score 1) 312

that a fair process exists is far, far more important than whatever the statistics afterwards say.

That is your opinion. The law says otherwise. Discrimination in hiring on the basis of gender is illegal, and it doesn't matter what process you use to justify that discrimination, or even if the discrimination is unintentional. If the END RESULT is systematic discrimination, then you are going to lose in court.

No, the law does not say otherwise. Here's the reason why; the national act that says so, the Equal Employment and Opportunities Act of 1972, specifies that, "All employees ... shall be made free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." This applied at the time only to Federal employees and those who worked in interstate service jobs, like hotels and restaurants, but has been expanded over the years to encompass all businesses. What does"free from any discrimination" mean? Well, discrimination (in the context of employment) is defined as: "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." Perhaps now you see why; discrimination has absolutely nothing to do with numbers or statistics, it means you can't have a hiring process that favors or disfavors anyone from a protected category. Even if you treat all ethnicities fairly, there are far fewer black people in the IT industry; thus, a lower percentage of black employees isn't necessarily because they are discriminated against. Likewise, just because you have fantastic numbers on paper doesn't mean anything if you had to give people useless jobs just for a census count, or if you give all of your black employees low level service jobs and all of your white ones better paying management positions.

Comment Re:It was a hell of a gamble... (Score 1, Interesting) 450

I wasn't making a statement about whether majorities like them, I was making a statement about whether their beliefs actually align with the beliefs of the American people, and I don't believe they do.

All right. You hardly speak for Americans, and in fact you don't align with my beliefs, but I understand setting the stage.

Nevertheless, if you do want to talk about polls, look at the page: in 2016, 37% say the court is "too liberal", vs 20% saying that it is "too conservative", and SCOTUS approval ratings have dropped sharply under Obama.

Yeah, and the problem with this is that it's not at all accurate. We have one of the most conservative courts in decades, and with Gorsuch on there, it now swerves even harder to the right. The thing about most people is that (surprisingly) they have absolutely no idea how the government actually works. There are 5 conservative judges and four liberal ones; that means that for every "liberal" decision, there has to be at least one conservative judge who agrees. Furthermore, Obama's name functions a bit like Republican-repellent; case in point, Obamacare. When he was in office, it was remarkably unpopular, and yet now, somehow, it's rocketed up in ratings. What magical things about it changed? Nothing, merely that people who were previously content to bitch about their government provided healthcare never realized that it was only possible through Obamacare. Lastly, I think it's worth a point that Congress and Trump are two of the most unpopular political entities of our time, and both are considered Republican (and conservative). If Americans really wanted a more conservative government, why would approval rates for their senators and representatives be so low? Why would many conservative stances, such as on repealing Obamacare and scaling back the EPA, be so unpopular? I don't think conservatives are what America wants at all.

If you check the news stories from last year and this year, you'll also see that people widely perceive SCOTUS nominations as a reason why people are might be/are/have been voting for Trump.

It's a strong reason why REPUBLICANS voted for Trump, who have an advantage because low population states allow them to punch above their weight, and they still couldn't even win a majority. Are Democrats not people anymore???

And you need to realize that polls tend to be biased in favor of the left because conservatives, libertarians, and/or independents rather hang up than voice a negative opinion to an anonymous stranger that has their personal information.

This is uncited. Until you can provide some evidence to back this up, I am not really inclined to believe that they wouldn't positively answer a poll in favor of their candidate.

People don't get fired, attacked, or beaten up for approving of Obama or progressive causes, but they do get fired, attacked and beaten up for supporting Trump or opposing affirmative action or opposing gay marriage. Keeping quiet in RL about conservative, libertarian, or independent viewpoints is pretty much ingrained now in many people.

That is absolutely not true. There are cases where violence occurs on both sides, but only one side has a president who says "knock the crap out of him" when he sees a protester of the other party, only one hide hung up dolls of the opposing candidate and set them on fire, only one side promised to gather up their weapons and Allahu Akbar the capital if their candidate didn't win, and only one side refuses to say anything bad about domestic terrorism or other forms of violence directed at American citizens. And if you really think Republicans won't attack you, go outside, proclaim yourself a progressive liberal democrat, and watch what happens.

Comment Re: ATTN: Potential New Hires (Score 1, Insightful) 312

You want similar pay, you have to actually ask for it.

No you don't. If Google's hiring process results in equally qualified men and women being paid significantly and systematically differently, then it is illegal. They can't use the lame excuse that the qualified women "deserve" to be paid less because they are bad negotiators. Being a "good negotiator" is not relevant to being a qualified engineer. For large companies, the DOJ does not need to prove the hiring process is "unfair", they only need to show that the results of the process are unequal.

I think your last sentence is wrong. At least when it comes to employees, that a fair process exists is far, far more important than whatever the statistics afterwards say. If Google massaged the numbers to make them look equal, that would be giving off a false appearance - likewise, I don't know why we'd punish a company for not having more engineers of a certain ethnicity, assuming they can show their hiring process isn't biased. Otherwise you get shit like gender quotas or such, which while I realize some people view them as necessary, I see them as both discriminatory and likely to produce worse employees. Honestly, a level of separation between the department that processes and accepts resumes and the one that evaluates whether or not employees are qualified would be nice, although I bet most companies don't want to deal with the extra overhead. This way, the guy who makes the deciding decision sees only their qualifications / personal letters - nothing else such as their name, ethnicity, gender, or anything else that is irrelevant.

Comment Re:This is of no surprise (Score 1) 245

I normally don't do this, but seeing as I am all out of mod points, this is all I can do to help. This is a really, really insightful comment, and effectively distills why people should be more wary of large corporations. Government can cause tyranny, but it's not the only form of tyranny, and at least in our country you can vote for your government officials. When people remember the good old days of the 50's, they are not remembering the lawless era of the gilded age, when there truly was very little government involvement for business; instead, they remember a more socialist time period the US - when taxes were high, the government ran an extensive set of public welfare programs from the depression era, we invested massively into infrastructure at the taxpayer's expense, and the difference between our richest and poorest was much, much lower. That simply isn't possible without regulation, because companies have no reason to want it - their job is to make themselves richer, and ensuring a middle class lifestyle for most is antithetical to that goal. Furthermore, in the rush to dismantle social programs so people can save a little more on their monthly paycheck, the Reagan and Bush eras massively destabilized our society, with the former encouraging profits at all costs while the latter encouraged as little oversight as possible at all costs. What we have now is an era where even many formerly middle class people can no longer effectively compete, and as our new president rushes to further cut restrictions and to further encourage more wealth and power to the top 1%, we are going to witness these problems become even more intense.

A mixture of both is what it takes to run a successful society, and a true mixture of both; moderates in the US, are not moderates on the scale in general. I think it's little surprise why most European countries enjoy a much better standard of living, and the reason for that is a much more balanced approach to the power of government vs corporations. Thank you for your insightful comment, and I hope somebody else is able to mod you up to the level you deserve to be at.

Comment Re:Nothing useful in standard system directories (Score 3) 151

Because by encrypting everything, you A. prevent an attacker from knowing the layout and structure of the filesystem and B. prevent anybody from tampering with your binaries without knowing the password. For example, you don't have to worry a police agent alters /bin/ls or so behind your back, and nuking just the bootloader is much easier than trying to replace the entire unencrypted filesystem afterwards.

Comment Re:Your attitude is why Trump won the election. (Score 1) 649

Leftists such as yourself have been shitting all over Republicans for decades now, without any justification. Just look at your comment. It's hyperbole and one unsubstantiated ad hominem attack after another. You attack and attack and attack people who have done absolutely nothing to you other than have higher standards and maybe have slightly different religious beliefs (which ends up being irrelevant in practice).

Yes, when people like you unjustifiably ridicule and insult and harass and demean millions upon millions of Americans who are actually decent, hard-working, industrious people, of course they'll turn against you politically. It's unbelievable how badly we've seen leftists treat their fellow Americans, especially when these other Americans really haven't done anything to the leftists.

And before you start claiming I'm a Republican, or that I'm one of these other Americans, or that I'm a Trump supporter, let me inform you that I'm not. I'm just an impartial observer who has seen what has gone on for many years now, and it's quite clear who the aggressors are (leftists) and who the victims are (centrist and rightists who generally just want to be left alone).

Well said - sadly, I have no mod points.

I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal - I don't splurge pointlessly, but I find homeless people and take them out to eat, or to get groceries. Government needs a 90% shrinkage and to stop micromanaging our lives. I voted for Trump - despite hating everything about him - because I saw Hilary as the paragon of corruption and evil. I voted for Trump well-aware that I was voting to put a long-standing Democrat (claiming that he's suddenly Republican) in the white house.

This election was Democrat vs. Democrat. One is a batshit crazy mafia criminal. The other is a batshit crazy immature failed businessman.

I figured I'd give Trump the chance to show the country that he isn't as morally deficient as Hilary. I don't care what happens - there was nothing good that was going to come from either of them. I felt like this election was less "Trump won" and more "This is a lesson to running for office while being a traitor."

It's all a show at this point. Either way...throw the tags away because they're divisive for no reason. The Republicans didn't win, the Democrats did. That was the POINT of this election - to make it Democrat vs. Democrat, to insure Hilary got elected. But she's so corrupt and pleased with her immunity from prosecution that the nation voted in the monkey just to spite her.

We're all on the same team now. Enjoy the ride. It's going to be strange, and ugly, and probably painful, but it will certainly be DIFFERENT, and that's at least something new.

See, I don't really understand this. How the fuck is Donald Trump different from any other politician? He lies, check. He overpromises and underdeliveres, check. He's plagued by scandals, check. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about 95% of the time, as opposed to the old standard of 60%. Check. The only new thing about him is that he steals from the treasury openly. What exactly about him is any different from Bush?

Comment Re:Yes those emails (Score 4, Insightful) 397

Ahh, blaming an enemy for his opponent's practices. If only the French were strong enough to defeat the Nazis, then we'd never have had world war II, so therefore France should pay for all of Germany's reparations. And then opposing a nutbag of conspiracy theories makes one partisan, which somehow ruins a republic, so you need to be partisan for my side so we're not partisan and lacking in integrity and somehow all of the problems in today's society will fix themselves without my dedicating an iota of thought.I love the acrobatic logic, truly.

Now, hmm. A moron of a president who doesn't know the first thing about politics, a chamber with a brand of conservatives dedicated to opposing the moderates in their own party, widespread differences in view with no interest in attempting any sort of reconciliation, occupying a number of incredibly unpopular views while making promises they know they can't keep, having lost the culture war 20 years ago and losing more each day, having virtually no sway with all of the increasing voter demographics, and being hopelessly out of touch with their own voters on topics such as healthcare, and uh, yeah. I am hugely afraid of all the stupid and damaging legislation that could be passed in the next 4 years. I am not at all worried they'll stay in power after that at the rate they're going, and if they keep shooting themselves in the foot by making policies that hurt their own voters the most, that might not even take four years.

The bigger question I have for you is, what about them makes you want to support them?

Comment Re:Dumb move by defendant (Score 1) 54

But if he truly thinks he's innocent, he's got nothing to lose. The worst scenario might be some out of context snippets, but the most likely scenario is nothing of interest. By letting it by admitted, he potentially scores points with a jury, and there might even be something in the recordings that backs him up - wouldn't be the first time.

Comment Re: bit rot (Score 1) 475

This is quite possibly the most ignorant comment in this entire thread. ZFS is dead? What are you smoking? It's in illumos and FreeBSD. Which is the base for many many of the largest storage v noses on earth. Emc, nexenta, spectra logic. Your idea that zfs is dead should be completely ignored as ignorant.

Not to mention that FreeBSD's fork is completely patent free and open source, available to everyone. FreeBSD's version of ZFS has as much chance of becoming Oracle fodder as ext4 does. Which is to say, fairly likely since Oracle considers all successful software to be theirs, but they won't be able to build a case with it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Money cannot buy love, nor even friendship.

Working...