Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Either that or (Score 1) 6

It pulls the chumps off of Wall Street to work in relatively economically harmless cabinet positions, thus allowing a new generation to take over on Wall Street producing a boom.

The Peter Principle- it still could work.

Comment Re: you no longer own your devices (Score 1) 171

Then again they would probably prefer to be in court for that, than for one of their phones causing bodily harm. There is a fair chance they would win, given even the FAA considers it a danger.

Adding to this that a recent analysis indicates that the battery stress tolerances in the phone are beyond acceptable, it would they work out to be a potentially ticking time bomb.

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 324

I have enjoyed going to the theater for its own sake on quite a few occasions, either because I was with friends at a really good local theater that has beer you can sup while you watch, or when the audience reacts to a movie in a funny way and it's fun to be part of that shared experience among strangers (either because the movie is great or because it's awful). Also, it's my kids intro to doing something naughty (smuggling in snacks) and being discrete about it. Maybe it's a slippery slope and they'll wind up politicians.

Comment Re:no (Score 1) 324

Your response is lame.

He already said he has a Roku attached to it so your smart TV comment is wrong. I know of almost know one with a Bluray or DVD player anymore, because as he said, as a society we have moved on, why spend money on a tech that is on it's way out the door. If you don't believe me look at BlockBuster, or Hollywood Video, or Redbox who is going to have to shift to streaming if they want to survive.

When the rental places cannot survive you know the format is doomed.

Comment Re:Fake News? (Score 1) 779

> You think your source is always right and mine is wrong so don't apply your brain.

That's not what I said. Always right or wrong is nonsensical.
Truth is subtle and the narrative can connect facts that aren't connected, so there's a question of why you would risk being manipulated by a source who formally states a lack of factual integrity. If you are tempted to claim "I can decide for myself", you are missing the can be manipulated despite your best efforts.

Once a source has shown to disregard basic standards of proof, there are other sources. Circle round if you find another. Shouldn't there be someone else who cites those studies outside of Tech Dirt?

> Believing every news source to be equal is the problem.
> No, that is what causes fake news to work in the first place

You restated my assertion, while saying "no", as if it's a disagreement. Not believing something is the default position (skepticism).
I feel like you're just too wound up now to be rational in an attempt to "win" something so good luck convincing someone else.


Weather Channel To Breitbart: Stop Citing Us To Spread Climate Skepticism ( 567 published an article last week that erroneously claims global warming is coming to an end, claiming "global land temperatures have plummeted by 1 degree Celsius since the middle of the year -- the biggest and steepest fall on record." The Weather Channel finds this report especially upsetting as it's not only inaccurate but it features a video from at the top of the article. The Weather Channel reports: Breitbart had the legal right to use this clip as part of a content-sharing agreement with another company, but there should be no assumption that The Weather Company endorses the article associated with it. The Breitbart article -- a prime example of cherry picking, or pulling a single item out of context to build a misleading case -- includes this statement: "The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare." In fact, thousands of researchers and scientific societies are in agreement that greenhouse gases produced by human activity are warming the planet's climate and will keep doing so. Along with its presence on the high-profile Breitbart site, the article drew even more attention after a link to it was retweeted by the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The Breitbart article heavily references a piece that first appeared on U.K. Daily Mail's site. The Weather Channel went on to refute the Breitbart article's hypothesis: This number comes from one satellite-based estimate of temperatures above land areas in the lower atmosphere. Data from the other two groups that regularly publish satellite-based temperature estimates show smaller drops, more typical of the decline one would expect after a strong El Nino event. Temperatures over land give an incomplete picture of global-scale temperature. Most of the planet -- about 70 percent -- is covered by water, and the land surface warms and cools more quickly than the ocean. Land-plus-ocean data from the other two satellite groups, released after the Breitbart article, show that Earth's lower atmosphere actually set a record high in November 2016.

Comment Re:Fake News? (Score 1) 779

> Right, so nothing they say can possibly be true

I did not say that and that's not the point.

> This is exactly the issue that causes Fake news.

No, it is not and I don't think you understand the nature of the problem with Fake news. Believing every news source to be equal is the problem.

> You choose to believe something based on who says it

Tech Dirt has the journalistic integrity of Facebook, I don't need to "check it out" to treat it as such.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Never face facts; if you do, you'll never get up in the morning." -- Marlo Thomas