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:Anyone surprised? (Score 1) 330

And based on actuarial data, he can expect to live about 15 more years.

Not at his weight. We don't know his actual height but we do know he's obese. Obesity at his age is just as detrimental - if not more so - as obesity at a younger age.

Keep in mind: he's never smoked, he doesn't drink and he has the best healthcare money can buy

So he won't die of lung cancer or liver cirrhosis. That doesn't mean much. We know that the rest of his health report is full of lies - and that as he signed a form claiming it to be truthful he blatantly lied under oath to the American people - so it's impossible to know what else is wrong with him. He's coming on 71 years old, which is up there. The current life expectancy in the US is around 76.6 for males, but he was born in 1946 when the number was 64.4 for men.

As for healthcare, it is not clear he is actually making good use of it. Just like in business he clearly likes to surround himself with people who will tell him what he wants to hear, rather than what he should hear. The comments from his physician on his evaluation are quite possibly enough to warrant a malpractice suit. His doctor should tell him to lose at least 50 pounds, if not more. Ever see footage of Trump exercising or eating something healthy? Me neither.

Comment Re:Anyone surprised? (Score 1) 330

I'm not sure why some coward tagged your post overrated. I happen to disagree with several parts of what you said, but the overrated tag is unwarranted here (as it is in most cases).

The Clinton Administration was prosperous, had a great economy

For the rich. Workers got the shaft, hard, when Clinton picked up the Reagan/Bush free trade law and ran with it.

While the rich saw their wealth accelerate greatly under the Clinton Administration, the poor made better gains under the Clinton Administration than under almost any other of the past several decades. I can tell you that during that time my own wage was the furthest it had ever been from the federal or state minimum wage prior to when I completed graduate school. For some time I had a retail job where I was pulling about twice the minimum wage; now around 20 years later people in that same retail job are working it for about the same wage I made back then.

shitty service jobs paying a fraction of what a good unionized factory worker would make

You're absolutely right that the unions lost ground under Clinton. However they lost less ground under Clinton than under Reagan, either Bush, or Obama. Is that weak tea? Absolutely. It's easy to get the unions to yield when things are prosperous, and easy to strong-arm them into yielding when things are not. We've also had an overwhelming message of how terrible organized labor is (after all, who wants a 5 day work week, paid vacation, sick leave, or worker safety?) that makes it easy for the government to help big business disarm the unions.

Comment Re:FTFY (Score 1) 330

Democrats voted in overwhelming numbers for a full out Socialist over Clinton.

No, they did not. First of all, it is an oversimplification to call Sanders a "full out Socialist". He has many significant socialist leanings but he diverges from the common platform in several ways. More significantly though, the primaries and caucuses were won by Hillary. Even if the superdelegates didn't exist, even if we ignore the state lines and just take the straight votes, even if we stand on our head when we count the ballots, she still won the nomination in the vote tally. Was it close? Yes, it was really quite close. Arguably it was close enough that it forced her to change some parts of her platform to bring the Sanders supporters in to support her, but that wasn't enough to win the election in November.

Were democrats trying to keep her out of the white house, as you claim? I have yet to meet anyone who voted in a democratic primary or caucus who went there to vote against someone. By comparison there were huge numbers of people - on both sides - who went out on election day and primarily cast a ballot against someone.

Comment Re:Anyone surprised? (Score 1) 330

Personally I'm hoping that when Trump gets impeached or resigns, we find that Pence is tied in to the machine substantially enough to warrant his resignation as well. Just because we almost never see them in the same room doesn't mean Pence doesn't know what's going on; he is vastly more informed on how DC works than is Trump (although the same could be said for the couch in the Oval Office).

Hopefully it will trigger a crisis substantial enough to trigger a special federal election, otherwise the next in line is Paul Ryan which would not be good for the country either.

Comment Re:Anyone surprised? (Score 4, Informative) 330

Sanders has done orders of magnitude more volume of honest work than Trump. Trump was born with more than a silver spoon in his mouth, he had the whole fucking dining set. He didn't only benefit from the enormous loan that his father gave him, but also from his father's connections to the dodgiest lawyers in all of NYC - who were happy to defend him to the end for the right price.

Comment Re:Anyone surprised? (Score 5, Insightful) 330

Trump got in to office by being lucky enough to run against Hillary Clinton. A huge part of the GOP electorate would vote for a ticket of Kim Jong-Un with Mahmood Ahmedinejad just to keep someone named Clinton out of the white house. Any republican other than Trump would have wiped the floor with her; he was just such an atrociously awful example of a human being that there were people who had second thoughts or just simply stayed home.

Now that said, any democrat who wasn't named Clinton would have wiped the floor with Trump. Sanders would have annihilated him - indeed he polls better with self-identified conservatives than does Trump - as would any of a number of other people. Hell Jimmy Carter could have beaten him if he could have been talked into running.

Comment Re:Abandon hope all ye who enter Slashdot? (Score 1) 32

I know it is a defeatist attitude but there is absolutely no reason to expect this site to improve, ever. This site has had the same ridiculous unpatched bugs for years and years and years . Nobody knows what to do with it, or has any clear interest in doing anything with it. It isn't clear that there is even a programmer working for slashdot, it seems more likely that there are just a couple of random "editors" posting stories and periodically checking to make sure the page is still up.

To make matters worse the model that started slashdot and kept it going for so long is obsolete. It was originally a news aggregator for technology stories but there are much better ones out there now. The best stories here are often at least 1-2 days late, at which point the people who wanted to discuss them have already discussed them elsewhere. That leaves us with the conservative echo chamber that this site has become; the most commented on stories are political and the up-moderated comments almost exclusively swing in one direction.

And the alt-right doesn't have a need for this site. The users from here are already active on breitbart, pj, townhall, alex jones, etc. I and the three other liberals on this site already know that there are better places to get up-to-date technology news; we are largely here to see who gets to turn out the lights.

Comment Re:They could have done better with the data (Score 1) 343

You have some good points and there is room for argument on the danger of a voice-only phone call in the car. To be clear I'm not calling it an inherently safe thing to do but rather I am arguing that there are ways to make it more safe.

However what I was really after with this is that a phone call is one of the least dangerous things you can do with a phone while driving. A phone call does not require the user to look away from the road once it is initiated as there is nothing important to see. If the phone is set up hands-free it also does not require the user to take their hands off the steering wheel. However dealing with SMS or social media on the phone while driving does require this.

So would it be safer for people to just not use the phone at all while driving? Sure. Can we expect them to do that? No. If we could even just get them to stop doing the most inherently dangerous activities - that no reasonable person should ever expect to be able to safely do while driving - that would be a huge improvement.

Comment Re:He's a victim of his own lies (Score 1) 32

I can't tell if you are stating that you expect the code here at drudge-dot to ever improve, but if so you might be the only person with that expectation. Quite a few of us are here watching this trainwreck just because it is a trainwreck and the destruction has some form of entertainment value (and unlike the giant series of dumpster fires in the federal government, pretty well nobody gets hurt from this disaster). I expect people have told you before about soylent news, which took the last public fork of slashcode and started building a usable site out of it.

Personally I suspect someone could start with a wiki engine and build a more useful site than this, but I'm not that kind of programmer myself.

Comment They could have done better with the data (Score 1) 343

Once a phone call is initiated it poses little or no risk as it continues. If I start a phone call while I'm at a stop light and continue with it I'm really not posing any additional danger to anyone. By comparison taking your eyes off the road to read and write a text message is inherently dangerous any time you are attempting to drive while doing so.

Comment First that was *mine* was IBM PS/2 Model 50z (Score 1) 857

You can thank my 286 for the PS/2 mouse and keyboard interfaces (I had systems with RS232 and AT before then but the PS/2 was the first system I had as my own). I had a 10Mhz 286 in there with a full megabyte of RAM. Windows 3.1 looked pretty spectacular on that VGA monitor, even if it could hardly run anything inside of it. I think my HD (on a MCA interface) was 30MB; I had one 3.5" floppy as well. Both the PC and the monitor had some seriously heavy duty mechanical power switches.

Perhaps ever better it was my first exposure to the IBM model M keyboards. I marveled at how indestructible it was after it fell off my desk with all the keys falling off, only to work just fine once I put them back on. Simultaneously others marveled at how loud it was when I typed on it.

I kept some of the software (such as the original SimCity for DOS), though I really should have kept the keyboard.

Slashdot Top Deals

"We shall reach greater and greater platitudes of achievement." -- Richard J. Daley