Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:If they're smart... (Score 1) 123

Yes...yes he is. And his opponent wasn't a boring public servant. She's a traitor, a habitual liar, incompetent, self-serving, and saggy-boobs deep in pay-for-play.

Think on that. We elected an IDIOT because he's better than the alternative. If he gets our soldiers killed or sells us out, it'll be because he's dumb and incompetent, not because he's sleazy and malicious.

At least with him, there's a chance.

No you elected an idiot because you are an idiot.

Clinton had flaws, but none of the things you mentioned were among them (with the possible exception of your weirdly sexist comment about her breasts).

Comment Re:Despite enthusiasm at the box office (Score 1) 286

What enthusiasm? The fact that when all your showings are in 3D people reluctantly choose it over the 2D showing that you aren't even offering?

This. Citing the success of Avatar? Avatar succeeded despite being in 3d, not because of it.

During the whole thankfully-short boxoffice 3d craze of the early 2010's, I can count the number of people who told me they liked it on zero hands; meanwhile, virtually every conversation about seeing a recent movie started with something like "at least the 3d wasn't too distracting".

Comment Not worth the hassle at home (Score 2) 286

The problem is that 3D, when it's done well, is an enhancement to the experience, but not an essential part of it.

In the theatre they hand you a pair of 3D glasses when you come in, you sit down silently facing straight forward to watch the movie, and then you drop the glasses in the box on your way out. The 3D is worth while because it's really convenient to do.

But at home? You need to find the glasses when you want to watch 3D, then you need to move around to make sure the viewing angle is right, then you need to take the glasses on or off when you wander around to do something else, then at the end you need to find a place to store the glasses again.

The enhanced experience just isn't worth the hassle.

Comment Re:That's what we call a buying opportunity. (Score 1) 144

Wait for Trump to say something stupid that knocks a chunk of money off of a stock, wait a few hours for it to crash, buy low, and sell it after a week when the price rebounds. Once again, the ultra-wealthy with their high-frequency traders get richer, and normal people's retirement funds get poorer....

Unless that tweet turns into a punitive regulatory action, then you've just lost a chunk of your savings.

Assuming dumb mistakes on the part of professional investors is a very good way to lose money.

Comment Re:Pussy says what? (Score 1) 517

I actually thought he might do it just because he's effectively in prison now, as a way out that lets him save face.

Clearly, I gave him too much credit. He's apparently content to live out the rest of his days in a gilded cage, grasping at any pathetic attempt to stay in the spotlight-of-disgrace.

Comment Re:liar (Score 1) 517

How could you possibly interpret his statement like that?

Because he said almost exactly that? Fuck the bankers? Cool. Fuck the DNC for rigging their own primary? Hey, no fair!

People seem set on ignoring the single most important detail about this "partisan" issue - The people wanted Sanders vs Trump; the GOP grudgingly honored the will of its constituents (even though they largely expected to lose as a result), while the DNC rigged every step of their primaries to get the "right" woman on the ticket (and did lose as a result).

As for "one sided" - Nope!, the Russians hacked both sides, they just didn't find anything "juicy" enough about the GOP to bother with.

Comment Re:liar (Score 1) 517

Just because lying to the American public and destroying government records without oversight is legal doesn't mean that doing it won't come with a shitload of consequences, not the least of which is you don't get to be the president.

It doesn't have to be criminal to be dishonest, immoral, deceitful, reprehensible, and unconscionable. This is the pitfall of lawyers practicing politics. They know exactly what they can get away with under the letter of the law. If they lack moral fiber they will push that line continually.

Comment Re:liar (Score 1) 517

How could you possibly interpret his statement like that? He supported the exposure of corruption when it was exposing corruption *with an even hand*. Once the exposure was applied only to one side of a partisan contest, it became insupportable.

Why bother making such ridiculous strawman statements? It's obviously not what the OP thinks. I doubt it's even what you think. It won't convince more than a handful of readers. What was the point?

Wait, what? If you don't expose all corruption then don't expose any? All this hand-waving about even-handedness is just an end-run around the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that WL had any evidence of corruption on Trumps part.

Besides, the media didn't treat the elections with an even hand, so why do you expect anyone else to?

Would Trump be in power without Wikileaks? Very unlikely.

Is a Trump administration more corrupt than a Clinton one would have been? Very likely.

How can this be? Exposing corruption from both sides is fighting corruption. But exposing corruption from only one side, particularly the less corrupt side, empowers the corrupt.

It's actually one of the favourite tactics of repressive governments, the corrupt regime gets dirt on the less corrupt opposition and uses it to discredit them. Putin used it in Russia to cripple the oligarchs who opposed him, and Hoover used it the US to fight the civil rights movement.

There was always a risk that Wikileaks could be unwittingly manipulated this way, the reason I'm so disgusted with Assange is he's been manipulated wittingly.

Comment Re:What Clinton did (Score 2) 517

Lying under oath to Congress IS illegal, and she did it.

So did Trump's nominee for Secretary of State.

I won't bother going through the rest of your items, but almost every single one is either false or something that's been done by high profile member of the incoming administration.

If you want to throw Clinton in jail you're going to run into some serious issues of double standards.

Comment Re: Bradley Manning needs a HOSTS file (Score 2) 379

Yes there is. It's not a right-left test, but there's a near-perfect match between gender and specific neurological features. In a higher than expected number by chance, people who think they are mentally female are female in structural and functional studies. Likewise, people who believe themselves male have a male brain.

I try not to get too annoyed at dogmatic statements, but unless I specifically defer, I have a comprehensive archive of published literature from high-standing sources. Don't rip on me unless you know either my interpretation is wrong (it happens) or you plan on publishing a peer-reviewed rebuttal on each particular of relevance.

The first of those has happened a few times. Let's see if you can bring it up into double digits. Feel free, but remember that you're dealing solely with article facts and my interpretation. Where I used other sources, pick any peer-reviewed paper that covers the same basic aspect of brain development concerned (i.e. neuron type is indicated by chemical transmitter, it is not hardwired into the genome. Doesn't matter if it is the one I used or not. Falsify it. Better yet, falsify it and get the scientist or magazine to retract it for further work.

Ok, you should now be at the point where you accept the data sets I used. That just leaves two options. If the seat of the mind is in the brain, then a female brain must have a female mind, regardless of Y chromosomes, appendages and birty certificate.

The only other option is to falsify that, to argue that the mind is independent of brain. If you choose this, please choose to announce it at a medical school outside the brain surgery department after a very taxing practical, shortly before exams. Contrary views are nothing to worry about.

Finally,You can just let the basis be, the chain of reasoning be, but then you have to accept the conclusion.

Let me know your preference.

Slashdot Top Deals

The goal of science is to build better mousetraps. The goal of nature is to build better mice.