Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment Case Study: Chelsea Manning (Score 1) 534

Fortunately, we have the case of a previous wistleblower -- then-Pfc (?) Bradley Manning, now Chelsea -- who exposed much worse crimes than Snowden did, who was tried and convicted, and is presently being abused vigorously in US custody. If President Obama is citing a lack of going to trial as his reason for not issuing a pardon, then we have a much more egregious miscarriage of justice much more deserving of such a pardon, for which that reason is not an issue.

The fact that Chelsea Manning has not been pardoned, and is in fact being openly and publicly subjected to abusive treatment to make an example of her, says all you need to know about this administration's stance on pardoning wistleblowers who do their country a great service.

Comment Doesn't Matter (Score 4, Interesting) 609

If the Tories want to keep their jobs and not get swept out by UKIP, they're still going to have to pass Brexit. I very much suspect Theresa May would be sacked if she doesn't invoke Article 50 when she says she will: UKIP and its neo-fascist voters seem willing to insist on showing how much they disdain immigrants above all other considerations, the dire warnings of nearly every reputable economist notwithstanding.

The funny part is where the Brits seem to think they have a choice on whether they get a "hard" or "soft" Brexit: As Al Jazeera's commentator argues, the EU is going into negotiations with such a hilariously imbalanced advantage -- the negotiations are likely going to be conducted in French -- that the UK really should consider itself lucky if they can manage to walk away with any agreement at all (instead of the entirely possible scenario of them being booted from the EU and concomitantly the WTO and having to renegotiate all their agreements with everybody).

So long, Brits! You decided to enact the geopolitical equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face in the most ridiculously exaggerated way possible, all to prove how much you despise foreigners, and now it's going to bite you in the ass! Enjoy sleeping in the bed you shit your very own self, because we sure will.

Comment Re:Sounds great... except... (Score 2) 443

Rolling Stone, of all places, had an excellent analysis of the rather simple and brutal math behind such a transition. Simply put, there are about thirty trillion (ie, 10^12) US Dollars worth of hydrocarbons in the ground. Those hydrocarbons count as assets on the balance sheets of the richest companies on earth. Avoiding a 2-degree C global average temperature increase requires leaving about $20T of those reserves in the ground, forever. That is, you would have to get the richest companies in the world, all together, to write off a loss five times the size of the one that triggered the subprime mortgage implosion in 2008.

The scary thing is, in the long run, that's the cheaper alternative.

Comment Re:Myths vs. reality of Apple's founding days (Score 0, Troll) 106

Let's not forget, either, that Apple's most visible growth period -- after Jobs' return, the introduction of the iMac, later the iPhone -- was also a period in which Apple was saving production costs by using suppliers that employed child labor. That article is from 2013; there are still investigations -- and potential charges -- going on now.

Just keep that in mind when you fawn over Stev Jobs as some rogue market-disrupting genius: he made his billions with the help of child labor, indentured labor, conflict minerals, and relentless wage pressure on the workers who made his products. And we, upstanding people that we are, we ratified all of it, and celebrated him for doing it, by buying all his shit and then singing his praises in glossy magazine profiles.

Comment Guiding Hands (Score 5, Insightful) 248

Huh. How weird! Every time there's an article about, say, global warming, or efforts to correct imbalances in gender or ethnic representation in the sciences, or health care, there's always a sizable crowd of self-identified libertarians who show up and extol the virtues of unregulated markets and the need to rein in government spending. And now here we are, extending libertarian principles to their natural consequence (ie, taxpayers shouldn't be the ones to fund the sciences, but rather the market), and I see ... a puzzling lack of support for the idea.

It's almost as if taxpayer funding is only wasteful and frivolous if it benefits other people, and "libertarianism" is just a thin rhetorical cover for preserving privilege.

Comment WeChat (Score 1) 115

I cannot believe nobody here has brought up WeChat. The app is free, is super easy to use, can send both short audio and video messages, as well as text chat, and make audio or video calls. It's far superior to Whatsapp; once you use it, Skype and Whatsapp look like button-mashing clickbait for imbeciles in comparison.

Seriously, people, get your shit sorted out. WeChat fills all his listed requirements. Everyone should be using it for Internet comms.

Comment Re:Bias? Or reality? (Score 1) 445

Glad this got mod points, because most of these programs function mainly as an excuse for the sorry state of public education in the US. Did you know? Private and parochial schools saw huge gains in white enrollment right after desegregation, particularly in the states of the former Confederacy and Jim Crow south. And guess what? "School choice" programs favoring charter schools has had the same effect.

Structural racism is insidious and pernicious, and requires a lot of effort to eradicate. Here's something to consider for all the other people in this thread defending neo-segregation: There are two explanations for the unequal racial representation in our society (say, in the prison population, or corporate CEOs, or application of the death penalty, or encounters with police, or income distribution, etc etc): either we live in a society that distributes its awards and punishments unequally according to the racial background of the recipient, or you believe that there is something intrinsic to different racial backgrounds that account for it. Either we live in a racist society which it is our duty as decent human beings to combat, or you are a racist yourself.

So which is it?

Comment Re:Screw Mars! (Score 1) 156

EDIT: no hope of a breathable atmosphere. Figure out how to sequester all the CO2 on Venus, you could even one day get down to the surface. We will never be able to have open-sky colonies on Mars, but doing so on Venus only requires solving a problem that we're going to have to solve on Earth soon enough anyway. For all the extra solar energy, well, that's not really even a problem from the right point of view.

Comment Re:Screw Mars! (Score 1) 156

whoops. You beat me to it. Yes, I never understood why we'd want to colonize a planet with .4G, no hope of an atmosphere, relatively resource-poor, and further away. You figure out how to keep the platforms buoyant, and you can walk around outside in not too much more than a fireman's suit and a breather mask. Be good practice for doing the same out on Saturn or Neptune.

Comment Re:Only Republicans are too stupid... (Score 1) 84

So, by your logic, competitors should be flooding into every broadband market where Verizon/Comcast/TMC is the only -- and very shitty, and very expensive -- player. Should be happening all the time!

But wait, that's not happening at all, is it? Could it be that entering a market, blowing millions on building up your infrastructure (whether it's internet switches, laying cable, or building widget-factories), costs a lot of money, and only a total dumbass would invest like that when their competition is a giant multinational who has made perfectly clear that they will crush them the minute they open their doors? Could that be it?

Gee, it's almost like you're too stupid to understand how monopolies work, and that people with businesses don't just blindly run into whatever markets exist without actually doing some due diligence on them. It's almost like you've been drinking Ayn Goatfucker Rand's kool-aid all these years, and think that totally unregulated free-market capitalism runs on magic, and not the very depressing principles of human competition. It's almost like you don't bother to look out your window once and a while and see the actual results that occur in every instance when markets get deregulated.

Deregulating banks wan supposed to free up capital and introduce more-efficient financial structures that would more properly react to market needs. What happened instead? A massive implosion of wealth that wipes trillions of dollars in assets off the books and resulted in the single biggest transfer of wealth (and that from poor to rich) in US history. And here we are again, fighting any kind of regulation whatsoever, like none of that happened.

Jeez, you guys make me want to empty this bottle of scotch down my gullet, and then bash my head in with it. The overwhelming stupid is just unbearable.

Comment Re:Dog (Score 1) 327

I really wish you could give more than five points for good commentary. This guy's trying to build a gadget for a toddler, when a trained dog will be much more effective.

Come to think of it, everybody should have dogs instead of gadgets and toddlers. They make us better people (usually, unless we really really suck at being people to begin with).

Slashdot Top Deals

Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.

Working...