Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Moody's is good (Score 1) 169

I didn't previously respond to your post because I want to encourage you and posters like you. Don't get discouraged when other people jump on what you wrote.

You raise a valid point, and it should be discussed. I'd like to see you get an account and repost this, and any other rational points you want to make, so that we can discuss these issues.

Clinton will come up again as a topic, let's take this up at that time.

For now, I unreservedly admit that your post is good and you've completed the challenge.

Comment I don't mind Russian hackers (Score 1) 169

2) If you are mad enough to consider voting for Trump does the fact that the Russian's are trying to help him put you off. If it does who do you vote for?

That's an interesting point.

I think the Russians did the country an enormous favour by bringing the actions of the Democratic party to light. It's like Snowden outing all the illegal activity of the intelligence organizations.

I'd be completely OK if they, or some other country, did the same thing to the Republicans. It would only shine a light on the corruption, and help bring us to a more fair political process.

And we also have to consider recent events. Our own Federal Election Commission won't investigate massive money laundering that effectively neutralized Sanders campaign funds, or working directly against the Sanders campaign.

Also, the GCHQ was hacking around the Arab Spring, and the US deposed the democratically elected leader of Iran and put the Shah in power.

We can't blame Russia for doing what every other country is doing, and that we are doing as well.

The Democrats would have every right to be upset except that they were involved in massive wrongdoing!

Comment Love it and stay (Score 3, Insightful) 169

America is a liberal country - Love it or leave it.

Point 1: America is 38% conservative and 24% Liberal. (source).

Point 2: "Love it or leave it" is effectively "shut up and sit down". It calls for a suppression of free speech typical of tyrannical, abusive dictatorship. Turkey can say "love it or leave it" with some justification. America cannot.

That criminal witch is untouchable [...]

Insults are the domain of the Democrats, have some couth. Republicans don't generally use insult as a substitute for rational thinking, that's a Democratic play.

We could easily build stories about Hillary being Marie Antoinette ("let them eat cake"), or Lucrecia Borgia (for all Clinton's opponents who have died under mysterious circumstances), or even Lilith ("Mother of demons"). Some of them would even have a rational basis. It would be a counterpoint to Trump being Hilter, Stalin, or Cthulhu.

But we don't, because we believe the head rules the heart. We have smart people here at Slashdot, we don't have to descend to common name calling.

"Heart rules the head", IOW emotional thinking, is what Democrats do.

We don't *need* to spout lies or insults.

Don't descend to their level.

(And if you're a Democrat reading this and are angered: take the challenge. Post a reason why Hillary would be better than Trump as president, without outright lying, insulting, or wishful fantasy. In other words, cite their stated positions instead of "he'll do *this*" or "she'll do *that*. I don't think anyone can, but if anyone can, they'd be here on Slashdot.)

Comment Bullet points (Score -1, Offtopic) 51

Someone commented about how much Elon Musk is worshipped on this site, so I took a moment (a few days ago) to look up some stats.

Look at the bullet points for Jeff Bezos:

In 1994, he launched Amazon as an online book retailer. A lifelong Star Trek fan, Bezos launched Blue Origin spaceflight and aerospace firm in 2000, and more than a decade later, he purchased The Washington Post newspaper in 2013.

Now look at the bullet points for Peter Thiel:

Thiel co-founded PayPal [...]. He also co-founded Palantir, of which he is chairman. He was the first outside investor in Facebook, the popular social-networking site [...] Thiel serves as president of Clarium Capital, a global macro hedge fund with $700 million in assets under management; a managing partner in Founders Fund, a venture capital fund with $2 billion in assets under management; co-founder and investment committee chair of Mithril Capital Management; and co-founder and chairman of Valar Ventures.

Looking at Peter Thiel's wikipedia page, he gives relatively small sums to charity: a hundred thousand here, a half mil there. He started a small AI company and throws money at anti-aging research. Example: Thiel pledged $500,000 to the new Seasteading Institute.

Now look at the bullet points for Elon Musk:

He is the founder, CEO and CTO of SpaceX; co-founder, CEO and product architect of Tesla Motors; co-founder and chairman of SolarCity, co-chairman of OpenAI; co-founder of Zip2; and co-founder of PayPal. As of June 2016, he has an estimated net worth of US$12.7 billion, making him the 83rd wealthiest person in the world.[20]

Musk has stated that the goals of SolarCity, Tesla Motors, and SpaceX revolve around his vision to change the world and humanity. His goals include reducing global warming through sustainable energy production and consumption, and reducing the "risk of human extinction" by "making life multiplanetary" by setting up a human colony on Mars.

He has envisioned a high-speed transportation system known as the Hyperloop, and has proposed a VTOL supersonic jet aircraft with electric fan propulsion, known as the Musk electric jet.

And then we have the recent Slashdot story about amazon, and it turns out that Amazon is a cruel, soul-devouring workplace.

No comment, just thought I'd point that out.

Bullet points are interesting.

Comment Apropos of nothing... (Score 1, Insightful) 52

Apropos of nothing...

Just how hard is it to disable one of these $600,000 mobile golf carts?

For example, can a high powered rifle pierce any of the antennas, control electronics, or motive hardware? Would an IED be sufficient?

And having done so, what dangers might the recovery team face?

Comment Pants on fire (Score 3, Insightful) 52

Policing the world so he can prove how much of a big shot he is. Expect more of the same when he gets elected. Nothing but a third world dictator bully.

You do realize that's the opposite of what he wants to do, right?

He wants the US to spend less time, effort, and money patrolling the world, and wants other countries to take up the slack.

But go ahead and throw insults. It is, after all, the only thing Democrats do.

Submission + - Our Election Systems must be secured (

Okian Warrior writes: Bruce Schneier notes that state actors are hacking our political system computers, intending to influence the results. For example, US intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia was behind the release of DNC E-mails before the party convention, and Wikileaks is promising more leaked dirt on Hillary Clinton. He points out, quite rightly, that the US needs to secure its electronic voting machines, and we need to do it in a hurry lest outside interests hack the results. From the article:

Over the years, more and more states have moved to electronic voting machines and have flirted with Internet voting. These systems are insecure and vulnerable to attack.

But while computer security experts like me have sounded the alarm for many years, states have largely ignored the threat, and the machine manufacturers have thrown up enough obfuscating babble that election officials are largely mollified.

We no longer have time for that. We must ignore the machine manufacturers' spurious claims of security, create tiger teams to test the machines' and systems' resistance to attack, drastically increase their cyber-defenses and take them offline if we can't guarantee their security online.

Comment The big issue (Score 2, Insightful) 174

The Superdelegates were for Hillary, but we probably would have had a situation where Bernie got the popular majority but Hillary got the nomination, if the DNC had played neutral.

Don't lose track of the big issue.

You make some good points, there's lots of insightful analysis that can be done, but the big issue is...

Despite any analysis, he *might* have won the nomination. That $61 million extra given to Hillary by the Democrats is a lot of money, and represents good-faith donations of hard-earned cash gone to waste.

Ultimately, Bernie never got his chance!

Comment A funny story (Score 5, Informative) 174

This election is rife with hilarious situations, if you know where to look.

Technically, Sanders raised more money than Clinton did in the first 3 months of this year. As an example, at the end of January Sanders raised $67 million compared to Clinton's $27 million.

The maximum one can donate to Clinton (or any one candidate) is $5400, but you can donate to other Democratic campaigns in various amounts. So the "Hillary Victory Fund" held a number of campaign contribution events supposedly for local democratic campaigns. The fund transferred the money to local committees, but then moved the money from there directly to the Clinton campaign.

From the Rolling Stone report:

As an example, take couples who paid or raised $353,400 to sit at a table with George Clooney, a sum that Clooney himself called an "obscene amount of money." The figure represented the maximum allowable donation given the structure of the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint venture between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and 32 state committees.

Donors can give a maximum of $5,400 per election cycle to Hillary's campaign, $33,400 per year to the DNC, and $10,000 per year to each of the 32 state committees in the fund.

If you assumed that the Clooney guests had already given their maximum $5,400 to the Clinton campaign, that left just over $353,000 for the DNC and the committees.

But Vogel and Arnsdorf found that less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by the Hillary Victory Fund went to the state committees.

[...] The money sometimes came and went before state officials even knew it was there. Politico noted that the Victory Fund treasurer, Beth Jones, is also the COO of the Clinton campaign.

[...] Vogel-Arnsdorf also noted that of the $23.3 million spent directly by the fund, most "had gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton's campaign, including $2.8 million for 'salary and overhead' and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads."

So the Democratic party took all the Bernie Sanders money and matched it with an equal amount of money drained from local democratic elections, and like matter and anti-matter both sums annihilated in a flash of political advertizing!

All that effort and money and work you Bernie Sanders advocates put in came to naught, because the Democrats simply didn't want Sanders to win.

(I don't care *who* you are, that's funny right thar :-)

And nothing will be done about it.

The Democrats probably violated FEC law, possibly violated money laundering law, and absolutely betrayed your trust in a fair and honest runoff between candidates...

All this was noticed in May , and there's been no call for investigation, no call for prosecution, nothing.

Bernie got roughly 43 percent of the popular vote.

Do you think that those extra campaign funds might have tipped the balance in favor of Hillary?

It gets better.

The polls at the time showed that Bernie had a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary.

And by siphoning money away from local elections, the Democrats have probably thrown many local elections to the Republican side!

That's hilarious! :)

Sanders and the rest of the party are calling for *everyone* to support Hillary. They're effectively asking all the Bernie voters to "forget that we just betrayed you in the worst possible way, we have to stick together or Trump will win!". Keep party unity! Don't let the Republicans win!

And they're absolutely right! If Bernie runs as a 3rd party, Trump will win. If Bernie supporters switch to Trump, Trump will win. If Bernie supporters get discusted and decide not to vote, Trump will win!

The Democratic party completely screwed the Sanders supporters, and there's nothing they can do about it!

I get a chuckle every time I think about the current situation.

Trump was all over the news yesterday for calling on Putin to release hacked Clinton E-mails. No one was talking about Michelle Obama's "slaves built the white house speech" (which was powerful, clever, and well delivered), no one was talking about Bill Clinton's "I married my best friend" speech (which was powerful, heart-warming, and well delivered).

No, the only thing people thought about were Trump, Clinton, Putin, and hacked E-mails.

And no one seemed to notice that Trump just let the air out of the Democratic convention.

About 43 percent of Democratic voters, the Sanders supporters, got screwed.

You got screwed from the front by Trump, you got screwed from behind by your party, and you were the ones who paid for it.

There's a lot to laugh about in this election, if you know where to look.

Comment Missing a big point (Score 5, Insightful) 600

I think people are missing a rather big point here.

The NTSB is investigating the accident, and will post a reasonably fair and accurate assessment of what happened.

Tesla will make some changes to ensure that this type of accident is avoided in the future, and push at the next update.

All teslas will become safer because of the analysis. In effect, the collective software will have "learned" from a mistake and corrected. This is not something that the driver of a fatal accident can do, nor other non-involved drivers.

With enough data, enough mistakes and near-mistakes corrected, the software will quickly evolve to be safer than any human driver.

From a machine-learning perspective, this has enormous benefits.

Comment What's the return? (Score 1) 176

Looking at their numbers, I note that:

$100 will grow to $265 in 10 years with an annual interest rate of about 10%

$100 will grow to $365 in 10 years with an annual interest rate of about 14%

This seems *extremely* generous, given the market. And there were commentators in a previous Slashdot thread that stated "the age of 7% returns has long passed".

If this study were accurate, the authors should have kept their results close to the vest, and begin investing in the market!

Am I right to be sceptical here? What am I missing in this calculation?

Comment View from on high (Score 5, Insightful) 239

I used to make firmware that goes into aircraft instruments. The FAA has some guidelines on this.

Unnecessary code is generated machine code, and the rule is that you can have none of it. Source code doesn't matter, if it's ifdef'd out it's the same as commentary.

The theory is that if execution takes an unexpected jump, it can't land in anything that isn't specific to the purpose of the device. Some people take this to extremes, writing new versions of printf() that omit the floating point and pointer output formats when they're not used in the system.

However, if a buffer overflow causes the program to jump, it can't land in the middle of the pointer formatting section and send a pointer to the airspeed computer instead of the decimal altitude.

What the OP is talking about is unnecessary source, which is a different matter.

IBM did studies of bug frequency, and concluded that the number of bugs in a program depends on the number of source lines a programmer can see at any one moment. Big screens allow the programmer to view more lines of code at once, little screens require reading the code through a soda-straw.

Their studies showed that simple code-tightening techniques reduced the number of bugs. Placing the brace on the if-statement, for example, allows one more line to be viewed in the window. Omitting braces altogether for single-statement "if" saves another line. Using 120-char width lines instead of 80 allows fewer wrapped lines, and so on.

There is a competing goal of readability, so tightening can't be taken too far. The complex perl-style or APL-style "everything on a single line" construct goes the opposite direction - too much info and it becomes hard to understand at a glance.

Typical C-like syntax with line-tightening techniques is easy to read, and presents probably an optimal view of code to the engineer.

Braces on their own act like vertical whitespace. Requiring one-and-only-one exit from a subroutine leads to convoluted and chevron code (where the code looks like a big sideways "V" and the hints of indenting is lost). Requiring all definitions at the top of the module requires the reader to flip back-and-forth, and requiring Hungarian notation makes the code look like gobbledy-gook.

Dump it all.

Name your variables clearly, using nouns for objects and verbs for actions. Name your subroutines after their functions. Tighten your code to make it terse, but keep it readable.

Slashdot Top Deals

The ideal voice for radio may be defined as showing no substance, no sex, no owner, and a message of importance for every housewife. -- Harry V. Wade