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:Exactly (Score 1) 207

Hmmmm. That's kinda interesting. For anyone paying attention, three people (or at least one person and two cowards who may be people) all said essentially the same thing but in different ways with different tones and highlighting different details. -1 Troll, -1, +4 informative. Salesmanship, diplomatic tact, and a dose of political correctness makes all the world of a difference.

Comment Re:Here's the actual problem, (Score 1) 196

First off, whatever label used will eventually be a slur or co-opted. Welcome to the treadmill. Language sucks. If you're trying to steer it though, you should at least offer your preferred alternative. The alt-right / right / conservatives / republicans have it just as bad.

Second, I'm not sure you should jump to the conclusion that any idiotic statement on our side of the fence must be some false-flag trolling operation. Both camps are HUGE and we both have our fair share of idiots. Unless we call them out and self-police a little, then the idiots will flock to us and we'll be as bad as those TEA partiers. Some people will simply fight anything and everything suggested by Trump. And that's dangerous. ISIS is really deplorable. They should not be defended even tangentially.

Really, it ought to be:

First they came for the muslims, and you agreed because they look like ISIS. Next they will come for you, and all your bootlicking nazi buddies will turn against you.

This issue here though? With the visas for those from "ISIS controlled territory"? For the uninformed, that's fancy-talk for "Syrian refugees". And of course those people should be investigated. The newsworthy bit is that it calls out social media. Like what the hell is a "social media check"? If someone's friend posts to their cat-picture-post on facebook with "durka muhamed jihad", and a search tool hits that, is that it? Check failed? Entry denied?

Comment Re:Because the tech industry is soulless (Score 1) 181

Yeah, but you get your genes from your parents. You get your memes from the Internet.

But in your worldview, whoever is on top has some sort of divine right simple because their numerical superiority shows that their way is best.

Which is why Mandarin is God's language, and the Han are his chosen people. They ought to be Christians (specifically catholic), work a factory job, and die of heart disease.

All minorities are "degenerate" and rationality is irrelevant because what wins is what wins. ...Jesus fucking christ I think you're a god-damned monster. The exact sort of hate-spewer that twists religions into a weapon against people and force a conformist fascist regime. My only consolation is that people like you are why developed nations are becoming less religious.

Comment Re:Good or not? (Score 2) 301

Imagine if you will, a society that successfully eliminates con-men for a time. They have a "tough on lies" stance, or lock down the currency, or no one has anything to steal. Whatever reason, you have a generation of people who have never been flim-flammed, cheated, lied to, stolen from, and/or welshed. And then things change, as they do, and now con-men are introduced to the populous. They are liars in a society full of trust. Imagine that clusterfuck.

So, is the inverse true? Let's say we had some sort of sanctioned thieves guild. Government employees who were paid to try and swindle money away from you. Hopefully without actually taking your money. Do you think that society would be "easy pickings" for con-men?

It might be tempting to kill all the germs around you child. Or to protect them from liars and cheats. Or to protect them from themselves when they want to do something risky. But raising kids is a difficult tightrope of balancing protection and experience. If your kids never see any ads and are never told that the smiling people aren't quite what they appear, they're in for a world of hurt when you release them into the real world.

Comment Re:Not much for those stuck *right now* (Score 1) 632

The hell?

The mantra used to be "Hard work is the pathway to prosperity". You know, back when a highschool grad could go work in the town's factory and earn a middle-class income for 40 years. The American Dream. Of course that was in the wake of WWII where America rose to the status of super-power.

Then the mantra turned to "A degree is a pathway to prosperity". And that was true for a long time until everyone started getting them.

Now the mantra is "A useful degree is a pathway to prosperity". And that will be true for a while. Not forever, because things change. But it's the best advice I've got for kids these days. Or a trade. The work is rougher and your wage-earning years are fewer, but getting into a trade is a good life.

Comment Re:The debt is optional too (Score 1) 632

The summary says "education only guarantees debt, not a stable job." That's compete bullocks. Debt is 100% optional. Common, but entirely optional.

Pft, sure. If you have the money.

There's ways to make college cheaper than normal. Cheaper options. Testing out of classes (if they allow that). Getting other people to pay. And you could save up before going to college if you've got employment opportunities without it. It sounds like you had a very fortunate path for the college experience. Good for you.

But by that logic no one NEEDS to go into debt to buy a house. It's 100% optional. The mortgage industry is apparently "bullocks".

Some people don't have those options though. They don't have the money. They don't have the scholarships or grants. They don't have a job willing to put them through college. The college with the degree they want won't accept transfer credits and won't let them test out of classes for free credits.

But some people are fortunate. They have wealthy parents. They can get scholarships. They land a job while in college that will help. Have a degree and college in mind that lines up with cheaper alternatives and cost-cutting measures. But not everyone is as fortunate as you and I. Understanding the plight of less fortunate is the crux of compassion. Which the baby boomers are lacking on the whole.

You can say it's 100% optional to go into debt for college, for everyone.... Only if their alternative choice is to not go to college. And that's a really shitty option for a lot of less wealthy, less fortunate, perfectly smart kids who would do well in college. And it's a net gain for society for them to carry a bit of debt for a while so they can get an education.

That said, there are a lot of people that really probably shouldn't go to college. Even if they can afford it. Which is hard advice to give and harder advice to take.

Comment Re:Because the tech industry is soulless (Score 1) 181

Whoa there dude. Practically everything in that paragraph has something wrong with it.

I don't think that's a supportable opinion.

Did you mean viable? Because plenty of people hold and support that position.

If religions were not useful for propagating a people and culture into the future we wouldn't have so many religions that have endured for thousands of years.

By that logic addictive substances wouldn't have endured for thousands of years and we wouldn't have so many. People have been using and abusing opium for a long time, but you have to do some pretty serious libertarian-grade mental gymnastics to say that opium dens are a net gain.

And areligious people tend to not have children, so their culture dies out.

So the Mormons and Muslims are going to inherit the world? I understand the concept of outbreeding the competition... but that doesn't seem like the best solution in today's modern world with the whole lack of resources thing and limited fossil fuel situation.

Indeed, having fewer kids seems to be the consensus among developed nations. Religion or no. I'd even go so far as to say that's the rational viewpoint. Especially when your retirement plans aren't "hope one of the children feed you".

Religion must have been a net positive (even if locally negative for those who don't conform to the predominant religion) because otherwise, the areligious would have had an evolutionary advantage over the religious and would have dominated and killed them off millennia ago. Instead just the opposite happened.

It's not a gene. It's not something you inherit from your parents. You could be talking about how much people appreciate Shakespeare. Do you think that gives people a evolutionary edge to out-compete the rest?

"The opposite happened"? Care to name an areligious group of people that were killed off by a religious group 1000+ years ago? PLENTY of examples of two religions making war upon each other, but I don't think that's helping your case.

Furthermore, if you're talking about evolutionary time-scales, and ideas rather than gene-pools, the decline of religious participation indicates that it might be on it's way out. But I doubt it will ever completely disappear.

You can certainly argue that religion was or is a net gain for society. And there are plenty of valid points to that effect. But all of these arguments are just plain bad.

Comment Re:That's not a technical explanation (Score 1) 519

Then there was their more successful wiretapping of the DNC at the Watergate Complex. Of the two devices they planted only one worked and that soon broke down, forcing them to attempt a second burglary. That second burglary was badly bungled and five "plumbers" were arrested, eventually leading to the downfall of the Nixon presidency.

You're missing the best part. The way they badly bungled it.

So the first time in they pick their way through a door. That's fine. They TAPE the bolt open so they don't have to pick it again. Like if the bug breaks and they have to replace it. That's... somewhat ok. It leaves evidence that they were there. But ostensibly they'll be back in to gather the bug so ok, I can deal with that. One tiny technical tidbit is that they tape it horizontally so it sticks out the door instead of vertically up and down the door jam so it's out of sight.

Because a janitor walks by, sees the door is taped open and unlocked. Now... he removes the tape and thinks nothing of it. That's not super-shocking. Bit of a lucky pass on their part.

And then they come back a second time, like you said, because one of their bugs broke. Then these CIA rejects, under order of the president, performing clandestine and illegal operations, see that someone removed their tape.... Re-pick the door... and then tape it again in the same way with half of it sticking out. And they go inside to fix the bug. The janitor comes by, sees the tape is back, wises up, calls the cops, and these dufuses are caught red-handed.

Final result:

The president steps down.

A bunch of officials get charged with perjury and some serve between a month and a year and a half.

Of the actual buglers:

        G. Gordon Liddy. Served 4½ years in federal prison.

        E. Howard Hunt. Served 33 months in prison.

        James W. McCord Jr. Served 2 months in prison.

        Virgilio Gonzalez. Served 13 months in prison.

        Bernard Barker. Served 18 months in prison.

        Eugenio Martínez. Served 15 months in prison.

        Frank Sturgis. Served 10 months in prison.

And it took 4-5 years before before any of the burglars were actually put in prison.

Slashdot Top Deals

You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.

Working...