Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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: This needs to stay (Score 1) 269

you're dumb enough to esteem the judgment of a guy who hired someone dumb enough to take money from foreign sources and not report it

Oh, you're referring to the guy THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION gave a security clearance to in 2016, following a review of his business dealings in Russia? That guy? One of the reasons he didn't get even more scrutiny while being considered for that job was the fact that the previous administration had just vetted him post Russian involvement and considered him worthy of an unsponsored security clearance. Which you know, but you're pretending you don't so you can spew your usual phony ad hominem. Thanks for tending so carefully to your ongoing hypocrisy display. Continue!

Comment Re:This needs to stay (Score 1, Informative) 269

It's one of the few things the EPA does that's useful and efficient. Setting a national standard is well within the things that government should do. Compared to all the really wasteful things they do this should certainly be kept.

Except it's the manufacturers that self-report their own idea of efficiency, essentially self-awarding themselves this meaningless label. You'll recall the famous experiment where someone sent in an Energy Star application featuring their design for a gasoline powered alarm clock. Which was of course granted Energy Star status, not only sight-unseen, but obviously without even a moment's critical thinking on the part of whatever bureaucratic clerk is holding the exact job that Trump very reasonably considers a waste of your taxes. If consumers want a real standard, they should embrace something the Underwriters Laboratories standard for safety. Privately run, and rigorous.

Comment Re:Is anyone falling for this? (Score 1) 116

Which part? Referencing Wolf Blitzer referring to a non-existent "Muslim ban?" Or MSNBC spending a day lying about how Rachel Maddow was going to "release Trump's taxes?" Typical liberal, you, carefully avoiding the topic and going for lazy ad hominem instead. Because you sure wouldn't want to address the points being made - that would require you to acknowledge that they refer to actual things that make your preferred narrative less truthy-feeling. Can't have that. No! I love how in a discussion about fake news, you're asserting that the person relaying simple (and verifiable by you) facts is virulently ignorant. Thanks for proving my point. Good to have your help.

Comment Re:Is anyone falling for this? (Score 2) 116

So you are unable to actually understand that a temporary immigration halt that impacts under 10% of Muslims in the world (only a tiny, tiny fraction of which would be looking to immigrate anyway) is ... something that it's not? Please explain how the current Muslim ban works. Details, please.

Comment Re:Is anyone falling for this? (Score 3, Insightful) 116

You are making up an alternative meaning for the phrase fake news.

Nah. It's well understood at this point to mean, "People using widely consumed platforms to spread information they know is incorrect, and doing so while presenting those lies as facts." So, when someone on CNN says there is a "Muslim ban," they know they're lying and that they're producing and spreading fake news. You know they are, their informed audience knows it's fake, and some small number of non-critical-thinking dolts take it as fact. But it's fake news. Click-bait factories in Eastern Europe are NOT the only or even a predominant source of this. Most of it comes right out of mainstream media habitats right in the US.

It is the easiest way to make money there.

It's true. When an operation like MSNBC spends an entire news cycle hyping the fact that their head fake-news-talking-head is going to "release Trump's taxes," when they know perfectly well they have no such thing and will do no such thing (except a readily available snipped that - even by itself - undermines their own narrative) ... when that happens, and they get a big ratings boost from that lie, yeah - easy money if they don't care about the fact they have to lie to do it.

Efforts to identify and remove fake news have no political intent

Hilarious.

Comment Professional journalists? (Score 3, Insightful) 182

Professional journalists are some of the highest-profile PRODUCERS of fake news. I accidentally tuned to CNN the other night. Holy mackerel. I had no idea that Chicago's rampant crime problem only got really bad when the new administration put the new nation-wide Muslim ban in place. Hopefully Jimmy Wales won't be looking to get Wolf Blitzer involved in fighting fake news, because that's like getting gasoline involved in fighting a fire.

Comment Re:Bullshit, Todd. (Score 5, Insightful) 266

The problem is they are not suing over the mistake made by the clinic, but that the child has the wrong genes.

The kid having the wrong genes is the direct fruit of the clinic's malpractice. It's no different than a baby being dropped on its head by the doctor. You don't sue ONLY for the mistake, you sue for the consequences of the mistake. Two parents decide to merge their DNA and make a baby. They do so knowing their, and their families' histories. The clinic chooses to negligently upend that planning with an unknown set of consequences - and robbing the parents of having allowed the father to contribute his traits to the child they've chosen to make. The ramifications are numerous, both emotionally and quite possibly medically, intellectually, etc., for the child. You can't separate the negligence from the life-long consequences.

Comment Re:Non-starter 'flying car' (Score 2) 175

Yeah. Clients are always kind of shocked at the downdraft created when I use mid-sized hex to lift a camera while we're shooting some video. And that's something that weighs, oh, 15 pounds. It takes a LOT of moving air to keep a suitcase or a watermelon hovering in the air. To say nothing of my over-two-hundred-pounds and my passenger and the thing we're sitting in. NOT back yard material, here, never mind the enormous racket it's going to make.

Comment Re:I find this thoroughly unsurprising (Score 1) 344

That depends on your definition of "decent". How does your $25 device integrate with the steering wheel controls and the car audio system?

My $15 device in my 2006 Tiburon integrates with the car audio system just fine - I just plug it into the aux port. I can easily answer a phone call but pressing the button on the device which is glued beside the radio.

It doesn't integrate with "steering wheel controls" but not all cars even use those - even newer ones. I've also got a brand new 2017 Colorado that has integrated bluetooth but the controls for answering and hanging up are still on the entertainment system's touch screen. There's nothing on the steering wheel except cruise control.

Comment Re:I find this thoroughly unsurprising (Score 1) 344

State laws vary though. In my state it's illegal to "text" while driving (with text meaning use the phone for anything but driving), but that law explicitly exempts people who are stopped at a traffic light.

It's also hard to tell sometimes. My car's in dash display links up with the phone so that I can do a lot of stuff from the dash while driving and never even have to touch the phone. Certain features like looking through playlists are disabled while the car is in motion (which it seems to deduce from the GPS).

Indeed with Bluetooth if you're looking to completely eliminate phone usage (even talking) you'd need to just pull over anyone who you saw speaking while driving.

In the end - to a large degree I think it comes down to the fact that not a) not are problems are solveable, and b) sometimes the solution isn't worth it. Sometimes you just identify a problem and say "Hey, that sucks, but that's life.".

Comment Re:Wonderful news ... (Score 1) 177

Does anybody want to have to compete? Some do, but most people are lazy and want stuff for free, including customers. The government should be out of that loop. Lacking the ACA's forcing me to do business with my choice of two vendors who are themselves forced to replicate their businesses and all of their overhead in fifty different states, that should all be torn down.

Comment C-128 (Score 1) 857

My first home computer was a Commodore 128, though it was a bit disappointing as I'd already used IBM 8088's at school in typing class.

Truthfully I spent 99% of my time in the C-64 emulation mode as the computer was bought used and almost all the software that came with it was actually for a Commodore 64. It was where I learned to tinker around in BASIC though. Eventually the disk drive broke; for a while after that I would just never turn off the computer so the memory wouldn't clear (until a power outage would lose all my work :)). I found out my aunt had an old C64 in her attic and I managed to scavenge a cassette drive from that that allowed me to store my programs for a while until I got my first PC.

Those were the "good old days". Computer are definitely more useful now but back then it still felt like you were messing with something new that most people weren't familiar with.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing makes a person more productive than the last minute.

Working...