Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:"Gay Culture" is blind devotion then? (Score 1) 615

Ah that's always ripe, when ethnic majority countries who have fuck all for foreign born citizens laughably telling others to import more. In 5 years the US has let in more foreigners than Finland has population.

That's not the point, the point is you need to bear responsibility for the refugees of this conglict better, because it's you guys who started this mess. I'm not criticising the general US immigration policy, but the handling of this specific crisis.

especially when you have the same refugees fleeing the country due to racism opting to return to the bosom of Sweden.

Your 'source' is not a newspaper but a blog ran from spain by a guy who currently has an arrest warrant as he's a supect in several crimes. including fraud, harassment and defamation. They've got an anti-immigration, anti-EU agenda which they push by frequently running entirely fake stories with no sources. Reporters have tested it and they seem to approve any submissions that fit their agenda, so literally it's a comment forum moderated by a suspect criminal for his own personal benefit and political agenda.

So to sum it up: you missed my whole point and countered with a story from a propaganda site masquerading as a news site.

Congratulations, you're an idiot!

Comment Re: "Gay Culture" is blind devotion then? (Score 1) 615

Damn, you couldn't even get a single word out without trying to blatantly skew the issue

What? Are you with an honest face trying to claim that the rebuilding of the state of Iraq as it was handled by the US lead coalition was not a failure that lead to the newfound state of Iraq being so weak that it collapsed into internal conflict almost immediately?

Comment Re:"Gay Culture" is blind devotion then? (Score 4, Insightful) 615

Trump is fine with gay marriage and where Caitlyn goes to the bathroom...but Hillary wants to airlift hundreds of thousands of people who want to throw gay people off rooftops. It's a simple equation.

Actually no, no it isn't. The people looking for shelter from western countries are the people Daesh is currently throwing of buildings and massacring.

You created a failed state and a power vacuum in the middle-east, which lead to the rise of a theocratic quasi-nation of murderous madmen who're killing their own countrymen and fellow muslims en masse, and then when this population of civilians escape helloholes like Aleppo in hopes of not getting blown to bits amidst all of the fighting, people put them in the same category as the heinous murderers that they're escaping from. It's ridiculous.

Now is it true that Daesh is trying to sneak some guys in with this flood of people? Yes, absolutely it's true. But does that mean that because a tiny fraction of the wave of immigrants might be evil, the west should abandon all shreds of humanism and let the civilians be crushed by conflict? Have you seen the shape Aleppo is in?

We're at a point, wherein we here in Finland with 1/50th of US population have taken as much refugees as the US (10 000), and we had NOTHING to do with starting this conflict in the first place, and the US is supposed to be the 'land of the brave' and somehow the epitome of western morality? If so, stop being a bunch of pussies and take some responsibility for your own actions and do something to help the people whose lives your well intentioned but horribly executed nation building exercise has totally fucked up.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Or should we just give up on you guys and amend that with 'unless they're brown people escaping a conflict we started, in that case FUCK THEM!'?

Comment Stand-up is a special case (Score 5, Interesting) 550

I was recently at the Louis C. K. show here in Helsinki and they did not require anyone to lock away their phones, but prior to the show there was an announcement that anyone caught filming the show will be ejected.

As a lover of stand-up, I can understand why they're strict about this: the tickets to the show cost nearly 60 euros and essentially people are paying that to hear new material. It's different from music and other performing arts where most often people know what they're going to see. AC/DC won't lose any ticket sales if a few dozen guys upload a shitty quality video of Thunderstruck from midfield. But a recording - even audio only - of the new material by a stand up performer will probably hurt ticket sales.

That being said this seems like overreach: I did not see anyone being ejected from the aforementioned show (well, outside 1 dude who was way too drunk but he wasn't recording). People who've invested money to get to the show are unlikely to risk missing the show just to get a clip online, so I don't see a need for such a high-tech solution.

Comment Re:Still Confused .... (Score 2, Insightful) 435

A Wall Street endorsed 1% candidate is what's best.

Ah yes, because having a wall street endoresed 1 % is bad surely electing someone who belongs to said 1 % and has said: “It's very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”

According to the Times, a building on the Avenue of the Americas in New York City's Manhattan borough that is partially owned by Trump has a loan of $950 million that was paid for by a few different entities, including the Bank of China and Goldman Sachs.

Yes, yes indeed, this is the candidate that will put wall street in its place and change the status quo!

How... how does this shit fly with the american public, seriously?

Comment Re:Total Bullsh*t (Score 4, Interesting) 95

Ads are obvious - even the slashvertisements.

They're not obvious to everyone, in fact it'd seem they're not obvious to most people. There haveve been a few studies done on how well people, especially young people recognize sponsored content as an ad and the results are quite far from it being obvious:

In the study, published in the December Journal of Advertising, Bartosz W. Wojdynski and Nathaniel J. Evans, both assistant professors in the Grady College, conducted two experiments using online news articles to examine the differences that the language and positioning of the disclosure labels make in determining whether consumers recognize sponsored articles as advertising content.

In the first study, only 17 of 242 viewers, or 7 percent, identified the content as advertising, and in the second eye-tracking study, only 17 percent identified the articles as advertising.

"I think that many publishers and advertisers assume that just because they put a label on the content, consumers will automatically understand that the article they're reading is a paid advertisement," Wojdynski said. "These results show that's not the case at all, although the design of the disclosure label can make a big difference."

The first study invited subjects to read online content featuring two stories: one that was editorial content and one that was a native ad featuring a quote from the executive of a fictitious company. Twelve versions of the second story were presented, all with varying disclosure label language-"advertising," "sponsored by," "brand voice" and "presented by"-and different positions for the disclosure label-on the top, middle and bottom of the article page.

The study found that readers were seven times more likely to identify as advertising those articles that used "advertising" or "sponsored content" in the disclosure label compared with those that used terms like "brand voice" or "presented by."

The second study used eye tracking to determine the best position for disclosure labels within native advertising articles. When a native advertisement disclosure was at the top of the page, only 40 percent of the viewers looked at it, but when the disclosure was in the middle of the page, 90 percent looked at the label. Sixty percent of the viewers noticed advertisement labels at the bottom of a page.

As adblocking has become easier than ever advertisers have evolved and sponsored content is the new trend, and even though to you or me it's blatantly obvious to pick these out, many people are easily deceived. So if we want to make sure advertisers cannot deceive consumers emphasizing correct labeling is important.

Comment Re:50,000 * 30 (Score 1) 377

Due process. You got evidence please release it.

You're under the illusion that evidence, or facts, make any difference in this election. We live in the golden era of conspiracies, wherein 'the official truth' can always be disregarded when it comes to politicians and governments and replaced with one's own version of the truth supported by the relevant blogs.

Remember, one side of this race states that he believes climate change to be a chinese conspiracy. This is not a level playing field of factual argumentation, this is a shitshow. It matters not how things actually are but how they're perceived. Traditionally the media is supposed to act as a watchdog and catch politicians on their lies, but it seems to me that the US media has given up on that a long time ago and now its just reporting what the red team says and how the blue team responded.

Functioning democracies require the voters to be informed, and at the risk of sounding condescending, the american public at large is not, which is why Trump is where he is.

Comment Re:Dougla's Adams said it best (Score 1) 689

That said, the reason we're effectively locked into a two party system is Duverger's law. Plurality voting with single member districts leads to two party systems. It would require seriously amending the Constitution to change that.

All of this is very true. However, I'd argue that this is the kind of situation that the amendments made for. I mean, if it's the case as it now looks to be that the electoral system has slipped from the hands of the population to the hands of a tiny minority of wealthy individuals and institutions that control effectively both parties, is this not a case wherein seeking to amend the constitution to alter this state would be precisely the moral thing to do?

Sure it's no easy task to get done, but it is, in my opinion, the one thing that's currently holding back legitimate change in the US. As long as the red team and the blue team control everything and anything, nobody - not even Trump - is going to rock the boat too hard and the revolving door from Washington to lobbying firms will keep spinning.

Comment Re:Dougla's Adams said it best (Score 1) 689

Which Trump tax plan are you reading?

I based the remark on analysis of his plans that I've read such as this and a few others which seem to agree that his plan would increase the incomes of the top 1 %, but I admit I do not know if the plan on his page has been altered since these kinds of calculations have been last done.

Thanks for the interesting points about the tapes. Do you happen to have a source on the point about the reactions being out before the tape itself? Would be interesting to check out.

Comment Dougla's Adams said it best (Score 4, Insightful) 689

“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happenned to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
"But that's terrible," said Arthur.
"Listen, bud," said Ford, "if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say 'That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.”

-So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

Watching this election from the outside has been one of the most absurd experiences in my life thus far. The fact that these 2, both of whom are massively hated, are what the american version of 'democracy' (quotes because if this election doesn't showcase the huge issues with the primary-system I don't know what will) produces is just baffling to me.

And the fact that somehow Trump is seen as an outsider makes this even more twisted: he's not an outsider, he comes from the funding class itself, the same class of people that people hate Hillary for being in bed with. He gets his money from a whole host of different sources than Hillary, but nothing I have seen or read about him makes me believe he's capable of any integrity, or in fact that he has any principles at all. I mean look at his so called 'tax plan', it's cuts to the very richest of the rich, meaning himself, the Kochs, the Waltons, etc. But somehow this is the guy who stands for change and for the little guy moreso than Hillary? On what basis?

Honestly about the only sensible opinion I've heard him say is his opposition to the trade agreements, but given his tendency to openly lie about what he said 5 minutes ago on tape and deny he ever said such a thing I have not got high hopes that he would stick to that either if elected.

Facts stopped mattering a long time ago in this race on Trump's side because he's a known liar and on Hillary's side because the same is true for he and on top of that no-one trusts the establishment. So this has become a weird pseudo-election in which it's not about the policies, it's not about the current state of affairs, it's not about factual argumentation, it's mainly about making sure the other side is perceived as the wrong lizard. It's reality tv masquerading as politics, which is why I guess Trump has gotten as far as he has.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: please change the election system towards something that better allows multiple parties to gain power and redo the laws on political funding. The proper reaction when you see that an establishment talking head and a clown are racing for the presidency is not to elect the clown out of protest, because giving a clown the largest army in the world to mess around with is not smart, but to get mad and realize the system needs to be fixed. And neither of these 2 candidates are going to even try to do it.

And if the answer to this is 'ain't going to work the system cannot be changed as the powers that be won't allow it' then you've succumbed and handed over any freedoms you thought you had to the elite.

Comment Re:Why (Score 4, Insightful) 96

The question is "why"? - you have a higher chance of dying from a bee sting or a lightning strike, why not address the higher risks first?

Psychology. The nature of terrorism as a threat is what makes it so efffective towards western populations. I can avoid going out in a lightning storm, and I can for the most part reasonably well avoid bees, but the thing which makes terrorism such a hard issue to tackle is that it's unpredictable and usually there's not much you can do to avoid it if it hits and you happen to be there.

Same is true with car accidents and a whole host of other issues, but the difference is that this is intentional. People can mostly deal with the old truism of 'shit happens', when you're talking about natural catastrophes and accidents, but when you're talking about people with malicious intent, it's much harder to get people to adopt the notion that this really isn't a big deal. Add to that the fact that so far most strikes post 911 in the west have been small, but all it really takes is one major one again to cause massive panic and outrage: lightning and bee stings are not hoping on getting their hands on biological or nuclear weapons for maximum damage.

I'm personally not american and I agree that the war on terror (how can you even have a war on terror which usually is a direct consequence of war itself, that is, wars tend to cause terror) is a failure. I don't support draconian monitoring of people or what the intelligence agencies are doing. But I do think comparing terrorism to naturally occurring accidents is not exactly a good comparison because the 2 phenomenon are quite different in that only one of them is driven by conscious intent to harm people - and that matters when it comes to dealing with threats.

Comment Re:Do the math... (Score 1) 163

The material cost is actually a fairly small part of it

Are you seriously thinking that covering high-traffic road with glass-panes filled with electronics will keep the material costs small compared to a regular road?

The per area cost of these things is insanely high and they haven't even been able to demonstrate that these things can survive a single semi rolling over them, let alone thousands per day, while at the same time retaining their optical clarity so that the energy creation rate does not drop insanely due to scratching and dirt.

I have seen no material calculations or durability calculations of these things which would not make the whole project insanely inefficient and expensive, nor do any of the materials provided by the companies themselves change this. They've done no heavy-testing nor given out any reliable lifespan estimates etc etc... The idea is cool for sure, but the practical specs they've given inspire no confidence in it whatsoever,

It has been suggested that solar roadways can save money by replacing the substantial cost of building a road surface. Most of the cost of a road is in the road bed, the load bearing structure that gets hammered millions of times by trucks with only superficial damage. It is not possible, even in non-freezing climates, to build a load-bearing road without this base, so at best solar roadways requires the replacement of only the surface of the road (inexpensive bitumen and gravel) with concrete and steel, then tiles. LA freeways were originally built with concrete, but are now repaired with tarmac, aptly illustrating the price differential involved.

If a regular expressway costs about a million dollars per mile, solar roadways will add to this cost
$400,000 for concrete (at $75/cubic meter)
$250,000 for steel rebar and support pillars (conservative estimate at $1/foot)
$17,000,000 for 170,000 tiles, at an incredibly conservative cost estimate of $100/tile. Actual cost is likely more like $1000/tile.
Lets say when you throw in cabling, trenches, and margin for defective tiles it's $20m/mile. If you wanted to pave just Route 5 between LA and SF, that's $10b.

For the same price, you could, instead, install a real solar power plant in the high desert north east of LA that generated around 4GW of power (twice the size of Hoover dam, another renewable plant in the region). For the same price, you get 100x the power, 10x the lifetime, and Route 5 continues to be usable.


If you think these things are economically viable at the current level of tech/traffic amounts, you are the one that I'm sorry to say has no understanding of the unit-costs involved.

Comment Re:And yet... (Score 3, Informative) 500

You do not have to choose between just Trump and Clinton. It doesn't have to be a crook or a thief.

While this is theoretically true, in practice the american political system is currently such that all elections are decided between 2 parties.

A two-party system often develops in a plurality voting system. In this system, voters have a single vote, which they can cast for a single candidate in their district, in which only one legislative seat is available. In plurality voting (i.e. first past the post), in which the winner of the seat is determined purely by the candidate with the most votes, several characteristics can serve to discourage the development of third parties and reward the two major parties.

Duverger suggests two reasons this voting system favors a two-party system. One is the result of the "fusion" (or an alliance very much like fusion) of the weak parties, and the other is the "elimination" of weak parties by the voters, by which he means that voters gradually desert the weak parties on the grounds that they have no chance of winning.[6][7]

A prominent restrictive feature unique to this system is purely statistical. Because the system gives only the winner in each district a seat, a party which consistently comes third in every district will not gain any seats in the legislature, even if it receives a significant proportion of the vote. This puts geographically thinly spread parties at a significant disadvantage. An example of this is the Liberal Democrats in the United Kingdom, whose proportion of seats in the legislature is significantly less than their proportion of the national vote. The Green Party of Canada is also a good example. The party received approximately 5% of the popular vote from 2004 to 2011 but had only won one seat (out of 308) in the House of Commons in the same span of time. Another example was seen in the 1992 U.S. presidential election, when Ross Perot's candidacy received zero electoral votes despite getting 19% of the popular vote. Gerrymandering is sometimes used to counteract such geographic difficulties in local politics but is controversial on a large scale. These numerical disadvantages can create an artificial limit on the level at which a third party can engage in the political process.

(Source: wiki article on Duverger's law

There are ways of setting up the system so that it favors multiple parties, but this requires large-scale reform towards some variant of proportional representation. And herein lies the core of the issue: since the existing parties both clearly benefit from the status quo which essentially makes it impossible for them to lose power, there's de facto no change they will be interested in reforming the political system or funding for that matter.

As far as I can see (as a non-American) the only change the people have to change the system would be getting it done through local levels (ie. through for example article 5 convention).

Slashdot Top Deals

I've looked at the listing, and it's right! -- Joel Halpern