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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Naturally they'll investigate to help HRC. (Score 3, Informative) 149

The whole democrat party has history and ties with Russia and has never seen Russia as a threat to the US until the democrat party was targeted.

"President Barack Obama was caught on camera on Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election."
http://www.reuters.com/article...

"Gov. Romney ... a few months ago when you were asked what is the biggest geopolitical group facing America, you said Russia, ...And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years. But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s"

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/2...

Comment Re:Doing Trump's work for him (Score 0, Troll) 460

You'd almost think they were to the point of micromanaging bathrooms.

How the fuck do you mange to keep twisting things like this?

It is the Democrats telling business that all sexes should be able to use the male or female bathrooms. It is them saying that the government has the right to tell people how a bathroom has to work. The republicans are saying the government should stay out of it, not take over it. The dems are the ones using this as yet another power grab.

How do you turn that into anything other than democrats attempting to take over the regulation of something as basic as a toilet?

You mean like who I'm allowed to have sex with?

Where are you getting this from? Or are you so restrictive and controlling that you think that people should only be allowed to have sex if they are married?

What women are allowed to do with their bodies?

Short of abortion which is a much more complicated issue than you seem to grasp, what are you referring to here? Or do you honestly believe that not giving something for free means that you are against something? In which case, why are the democrats against people having cars, TV's, homes, etc?

Comment Re:Jurisdiction (Score 2) 105

No. Obama would never tell Poland how it should run its country.

Oh shit
"We now have a continuous presence of U.S. troops in Poland with our aviation detachment at Lask Air Base...
I recognized that Parliament is working on legislation to take important steps, but more needs to be done.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07...

Comment Re:What is the appeal of these things? (Score 1) 129

Good points, but $299 or $399 or $499 for those as features? I'd rather either be rude and watch my phone or, better yet, untether myself from my phone and listen to someone's conversation without requiring instantaneous updates from social media rather than shell out that kind of cash for that.

That's why you get the previous generation
https://www.amazon.com/Motorol...
Moto 360 watches ranging from 79 - 179.

Comment Re:What is the appeal of these things? (Score 2) 129

I said the same thing of smart phones when they first came out. Why would anyone want a small phone screen when they can have a large monitor or laptop? I was wrong.

I love my smart watch. I am one generation behind because that makes it in my price range.

Reasons I like it:
* Being able to read and respond to texts discreetly
* People able to see who is calling by simply looking at my watch
* Fitness tracker (I know it's not exact but it still helps me set goals to beat)
* Helps me keep track of my phone (it vibrates if I lose Bluetooth connect so I never leave it behind.)
* GPS Maps on my wrist for walking even without my phone (with maps already downloaded)

The newer ones look even more feature rich. I'm looking forward to when the 3rd generation comes out so I can grab a second generation watch.)

Comment Re:Liability (Score 1) 162

OK. I'm not conveying myself correctly.

This was one of many things they did. The phone was part of many things (the way they treated the kids, my wife, etc. When my son died due to birth defects, my father in law said that on the plus side, I no longer had a defective kid. When my wife had her stroke, they told my daughter it was her fault for getting bad grades.) The phone was mentioned solo because the rest wasn't relevant

Comment Re:Liability (Score 1) 162

It was damn annoying since it made the phone only useful for them

Yeah, it's so damn annoying when other people live their lives the way they want to and don't make themselves available to you on a whim, 24/7.

Seriously, who should the phone be useful to if not them? You sound outraged that they're doing what they want, the way they want.

It was more that they expected us to answer our cell phones when they needed us but left their phones off so they couldn't be reached if they were needed.

Outrage is a bit strong especially and it helped me make the case that my wife's parents where just users of us and made it easier for me to have her eventually drop them from our lives.

Comment Re:Liability (Score 1) 162

I know people (my old in-laws for example) that only turned on their cell phone when they needed to make a call. After that, they turned it back off to save the battery. It was damn annoying since it made the phone only useful for them.

But they are an example of not knowing their phone wouldn't boot until they needed it.

Slashdot Top Deals

I had the rare misfortune of being one of the first people to try and implement a PL/1 compiler. -- T. Cheatham

Working...