Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
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:Yay for Men's rights... and other possibilities (Score 1) 177

There is no such real thing as "Feminazi" - the radical feminists are more like Stalinists: fantasies of pogroms (see: Julie Bindel) against the "other" (men) and dissidents in their own ranks (such as women who decide to be homemakers). Really, they're like Conservatives, who are in turn just like them. See: Horseshoe Theory.

Some feminists welcome artificial wombs because it frees women from the expectation of childbirth.

Comment Yay for women's rights, too (Score 2) 177

Imagine future generations of womankind growing up in a world where women are no longer needed for making children except for their eggs. This is a first step toward that. And that's not the end of the world for women. It's more like the end of the beginning.

Look at how dishwashers and vacuum cleaners worked out - did women think that was the end of the world because so-called "women's work" was in part automated? Noep, noep, and absolutely noep, it freed women to do other things. Patriarchal boneheads at the time complained about women having more free time but in the end only the Tradcon fringe thinks "women's work" is a thing anymore.

The artificial womb will free women from the expectation of motherhood in order to perpetuate the species. markdavis's remark about women being able to build up their professional life without worrying about missing out on motherhood will be just the first symptom of this liberating technology. Perhaps we'll never be rid of the Tradcons, but technology like this will further enable women to not give a crap about what they think.

Comment This is clickbait... (Score 1) 358

So the real purpose of the article? Create a trumped up controversy in order to generate hype before the IPO. Everyone is supposed to think the stock is cheap because of the controversy while thinking they are the clever one who sees the business model will work because the consumables are what matter. When everyone is the clever "one" they all buy the stock and the original investors get the profits.


Comment Re:A very negative spin (Score 1) 83

You certainly could and something like XFCE is definitely lighter weight. Personally I'm willing to invest about 15min in my desktop and want it feature rich. Considering Gnome and KDE were feature rich back when I ran my Linux desktop on a Pentium Pro there is no reason feature rich can't also be lightweight given how much faster the hardware is now and gpu graphics acceleration.

Comment Re:After a couple of decades of doing income... (Score 1) 399

"I don't know what used car prices are where you live, but that doesn't sound like realistic advice where I live."

You can buy a 2017 Honda HRV today for $14k, It won't be worth more than $10k in 3-5 years I guarantee it. If you maintain them properly most cars are reasonably reliable for 10-15 years. There are plenty of cars that fall in that price range after haggling.

"Abusing the mileage? What's that? Most people put most of the miles on their vehicles for their jobs. Most of mine is commuting to work and back, with some for going to stores and visiting close friends and relatives. I'd be hard-pressed to cut 10% off my yearly mileage and still work and eat."

Abusing the mileage would be frequently using it for long range transport. Typical lease limits are a fine high end for most everyone 12-15k/yr. That is what planes, trains, and buses are for.

"Alternately, focusing on low TCO means not buying insurance on the car itself, so if you're in an accident and it's ruled largely or all your fault (and these things happen), you suddenly need to get $8-$10K to buy a new car."

I fail to see how buying insurance significantly impacts the TCO of a car you own and didn't pay for vs a car the bank owns and depreciates about 10%/yr for the first five years.

"I paid a little under that for a new car, on a four-year zero-interest loan. After three years, I will have paid off 75% of the principal, and the car will be worth a lot more than $8K, so I won't be underwater."

No, zero interest is effectively the same thing as paying cash. I take 0% whenever I can barring any fees and then readjust what I pay so it actually pays everything off in time since they are often tricks that become deferred interest if you make the payment asked for. But a car you buy used for 8k is still worth about 8k a year or two later. That brand new $35k car will have depreciated by 8k within a year or two.

Repairs are a thing but if you maintain a vehicle and it isn't a rental or salesman car they are uncommon until you get in that 12-15yr range. Trying to make you think used cars which have been taken care of are breaking left and right and completely unreliable is partly true in that not all vehicles has been well cared for, also a factor for long drives and roadtrips that aren't really in fashion here in the states anymore, and the rest an argument used to help people feel good about spending way too much on something that doesn't get you to work any more successfully than the cheapest car in the lot.

Cars are liabilities not assets, sound financial planning is to minimize liabilities.

Comment Re:Hate to State the obvious but... (Score 1) 141

"the Internet"

You say that like the internet is some particular and singular thing.

"Blocking the Pirate Bay does not, in any way, prevent anyone from accessing the internet."

It prevents the creators and users of the pirate bay from free speech on the internet, the pirate bay IS the internet.

"not the part that happens between the Internet and some destination site you think you should have access to"

Destination sites/devices ARE the internet, there is no magical inbetween just a bunch of those sites/devices traffic might flow through between endpoints and they themselves can be endpoints. But hey, lets say I'm wrong and go with your logic and shut down access to all the destinations.

Why do people have such a hard time understanding that any policy which can be potentially applied to any given member of a group logically carries the same weight as one which is applied to every member of said group?

Comment Re:Hate to State the obvious but... (Score 2) 141

It's not the same it is far far worse. Blanket censoring is obvious and apparent, selective censorship is to blanket censoring what the line item veto is to bill veto. So long as governments can pick and choose who they want to be able to speak or who they want you to be able to see speaking there will be no free speech. They will control your mind by controlling the information you have to form your opinions, ideas, and biases. This is subtle and scary, it allows controlling your mind despite you thinking for yourself.

Comment Re: Hate to State the obvious but... (Score 1) 141

"Those are services provided by companies. That isn't the same as the govt shutting down the whole internet. Shutting down a service or two because it breaks some laws of the land is business as usual. Shutting down the entire internet is not."

The President has the ability to veto bills but not line veto because selective line veto is considered dramatically more powerful. Selectively shutting down dissenting voices or those the government doesn't like for whatever reason (which is all violating a law of the land amounts to) is more abusive than shutting down the entire internet. The only difference between the two is when you shut everything down everyone is aware, when you silence only the voice everyone needs to hear they don't miss it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any given program will expand to fill available memory.