Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Do you own your identity is the question? (Score 4, Interesting) 67

Currently, that appears to depend on where you live and the laws of that land.

If a fingerprint is recorded as a pattern, can you own that pattern? The answer is no. Practically and legally in the US.
Then an alternate pattern (approximation) will be used and so on...

What about your DNA sequence? What about your hair after a haircut? The answer is no over a long enough time period. Nothing about you will be deemed to be owned by you until the state has ruled it so and then the state ignores that ruling anyway in the interest of convenience or justice or whatever reason dejour until the concept fades. Get used to it, make your money where you can in the meantime, copyright your fingerprints.

Comment Re:Are you just a complete moron? (Score 4, Insightful) 316

> The stations on cable TV were always existing TV stations like WGN or TBS.

Hilarious. There were originally very few cable channels and generally you needed specialty hardware to even access them since everyone way on over-the-air transmitted by hardline or stuck with rabbit ears. WGN...TBS....those didn't exist alongside the Z-channel (1980s representing). What you mean by cable is a product of the last few decades where almost all signal is now carried by cable. The premium involved in that is now considered, incorrectly, part of the cost of transmission. The fact that it's not over-the-air should give you pause. It's now carried by cable, whereas cable was originally an extra premium cost for specific channels that....no surprise, had no commercials and pushed that (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cable+no+commercials)

You're too young to know what you are talking about, since some of us were actually alive decades before the internet. Asking to prove the sky is blue, is transparently juvenile and ineffective at making a point (maybe it isn't blue?).

> You are a complete idiot. If I am wrong, cite some proof for your extremely stupid assertion.

This is about history, not some nebulous deductive assertion. It's very clear you aren't smart enough to make a basic observation without exploding into part and parcel nonsequitors....probably insults people throw at you, with proper context. Please let your guardian review your posts, in the future.

Comment It doesn't sound nutty at all. (Score 2) 114

> "It sounds nutty but Facebook has a rock solid First Amendment right to filter out all Trump news -- if it wanted to."

It only sounds nutty if you're willfully ignorant (which is understandable given the status of US education).
The vast majority of Americans mis-translate some notion of freedom of expression to mean the right to be heard by anyone or that if a product is big enough, it magically becomes some form of common carrier....oh nevermind.

Comment What happened to NEWS for Nerds? (Score 2, Insightful) 460

This was a blatant troll on a forum and now because some idiot millennial wrote an op-ed piece, some idiot (manishs) put it on the /. frontpage?
Are the admins now supporting the things the moderation system fights on their own site?

This story is more of an embarrassment than the political vomit I've had to endure because _this_ story doesn't even qualify as news. e.g. What Company did he destroy exactly? You would think the incredibly obvious lack of facts would be a tipoff to someone.

Comment Re:Valid Action (Score 1) 623


See, I love how every articles straight out illustrates he is self-funded, lays out how he is, then says he's not.
The source of the money is him. Saying it's a loan is irrelevant deflection. What's the difference between me buying a house with money I borrow (margin) from my own IRA or loaned from Stanley Morgan based on my liquid treasuries in probate? It's all my money and in this case, his loan is still his money with a chance at partial return...unlike a charity (no he cannot deduct the loan loss either). Trump loves talking about (and at times pretending to have) money,. He's certainly not going to give back contributions. Trump's simply not THAT rich...not just because it's cost ineffective, as he has described. The diagram also shows 9 million from donors which he initially put up and has gotten paid back, in a subtle attempt to minimize how much he put up, but if you're just going to get your information from WP wholesale, you aren't in a position to make a difference anyway.


$$$ doesn't mean money to anyone but those with (ironically) their own personal agendas. Backdoor campaign contributions are the hot topic. The US public has a reasonable belief his political career (so far) is immune to. In a brokered convention, money decides so he will either secretly cave or lose.

I can't tell if your strange religious based ranting allows for honesty, since everything seem to revolve around self-assured rationalism with delusional gaps.

Comment Re:Why conceal it? (Score 1) 740

Yeah, why have ingredients on food at all? Why give a ticket for speeding on an empty road?

People expect the state to know and disclose information about food. That's just the current state of society. That's why.

This isn't a logical decision, it's a societal movement that will (probably) subside in a generation or so. That's not right or wrong, it's an interest elevated to the political level and now the legal level.

Comment Re:Trump is untouchable (Score 2) 242

Trying to leverage the reputation of a city's history of corruption into some kind of appearance of inpropriety is pathetic.

Trump's name (along with Bill Clinton and others) in Jeffrey Epstein's little black book. That's something to hide.

Stay out of the voting booth, if you're too emotionally unstable understand the difference between tangible facts and the fantasies you hope will come up.

Slashdot Top Deals

Reference the NULL within NULL, it is the gateway to all wizardry.