Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Good, I hope they close them all (Score 1) 119

I think he's talking about PS1, N64, etc. To the best of my knowledge, Gamestop never carried used PC games.

Of course, carrying those vintage cartridge/disc games would be difficult in its own way. All the Gamestop stories I've been in were fairly small and just didn't have the room to stock all those vintage games.

Comment Re:Yeah (Score 2) 398

You do know that the global economy is doing quite well, right? Furthermore, the economy is actually in danger of getting overheated, which is why Yellen is raising interest rates. This has been a concern of hers for the past two years, it's nothing new. There are so many nuances regarding the state of the economy I won't pretend to understand it all but I sincerely doubt that two months of an erratic president could cause a great boom to the economy, especially when the economy has been doing well the last 6-7 years and this is in line with a global trend. In fact, I'm worried that Trump will cause too great of booms in the future with his absurd "pro-business" policies. The thing about "pro-business" policy is that it benefits business in the short term, which is fine with CEOs because they only have to have a short term success to acquire massive amounts of wealth. If Trump replaces Yellen in two years with someone who won't responsibly raise interest rates when the danger of inflation hangs over the economy, we could see another crisis similar to the housing crisis at the end of Bush's second term. That's the danger of deregulation. You create a boom-bust economy. Reagan did it in the 80s, Clinton did it in the 90s, Bush in the 00s. Obama was the first president in my lifetime that didn't fall for the laissez-faire bullshit and it was the first period of steady, gradual growth. The boom-bust works out great for those who acquire millions during the boom. For everyone else, it's a rollercoaster you're not strapped into.

Your generalizations about optimism and taking risks are exactly what has caused all the busts in the past. Optimism is fine but that's not what happens during a boom. What happens is irrational overconfidence and that leads to horrible consequences.

Comment Re:Is any of this new? (Score 5, Interesting) 457

The fact of the matter is that the main reason the government is turning into Big Brother is because unlike most of the people on this site, the typical American believes that all of those things are ridiculous conspiracy theories. Hence politicians who find a surveillance state to be reprehensible are few and far between. I can think of Ron Wyden and Rand Paul off the top of my head and they're treated like whackos.

To flippantly dismiss it at "that's spying and that's how it's been for the last 2-3 decades" is the type of submissive attitude that has allowed this to happen in the first place. The generations of our time exist at a crucial moment in history when the very notion of liberty is in jeopardy. If we allow an Orwellian government to take hold—which all of these actions by the CIA are precursors for—then it may be impossible to reverse.

I may sound hyperbolic but the extreme nature of the changes our society currently face only sound ridiculous to people because most don't want to believe that horrible things are happening (or at least, they don't want to believe they'll happen in their own lifetime). It's the same with climate change. People just hope that when the shit hits the fan they'll be long dead.

Comment Re: Cue the hipocrisy... (Score 1) 412

While I agree the election process must be reformed, I think the big problem with the Constitution is the structure of our government as a whole. We need a new type of legislature (the Senate doesn't exist for any reason in its current form and the House is full of dunces beholden to various interests). We also need to accept that we live in a unitary and take education expenses to the national level. It's not right that the quality of education receives is dependent on where they live.

Overall, though, I'd want for a new constitution to be as limited in scope as possible. To account for the unaccountable, though, there should probably be some provision for drafting a new constitution every one hundred years.

Comment Re:"Protect US" (Score 1) 412

Allowing the terrorists to shock and scare the population is doing exactly what the terrorists want... so why do they do it?

This is a question more people ought to be asking. The answers are probably unsettling. One could argue that the media, the government, and even large swaths of the population want the threat of terrorist. The media wants your attention, the government wants you afraid and submissive, and a lot of people just want someone like Emmanuel Goldstein to hate. Then there's the military industrial complex, tech companies that sell the NSA hordes of servers, fundamentalist Christians who get off on the idea of a modern Crusade, etc.

Comment Re:Cue the hipocrisy... (Score 4, Insightful) 412

A government that believes in, upholds, and understands the constitution.. A 180 from what we have atm.

The Constitution hasn't mattered since the Civil War. What a court declares as "Constitutional" matters far more than anything else. At some point we as a nation need to accept that the Constitution is outdated and ill-suited to function as the blueprint of our government. We're a Federalist nation in name only as the Federal government uses the Commerce Clause excuse anytime it wants to intercede in something or they just stick and carrot states with federal funds when that's more convenient.

Back to the original point, the checks and balances that are worked into the Constitution also do a poor job of actually providing checks and balances in our bi-partisan environment. Check and balances have just become partisan tools both parties use to attack the other when they can get away with it. When it comes to protecting citizen's rights, both parties seem to agree that doing so isn't in their best interests, so various federal bureaus and agencies are permitted to do as they see fit. In essence, Constitution or no Constitution, no one watches the watchmen. Romanticizing the Constitution is detrimental to our rights as it feeds into the lies and illusions the government wants to distract us with.

Comment Re: Would it be positive for your customers? (Score 1) 158

It's hard to image that a company that collects so much data could really be caught that off guard. Sure, there might be a strange situation, like a modern Woodstock where thousands of people suddenly descend upon a low populated area for a weekend, but those situations are rare. For the most part, carriers know how much bandwidth they need where and they have the data necessary to predict most changes in the near future. If they're unable to do this then they're just bad at statistics, which is pretty inexcusable.

Comment Re: Why would this concern Trump? (Score 1) 184

In today's global economy you can't just threaten to cut off trade with anyone. If China wants to trade with Iran then there is nothing Trump can do to stop it. The same goes for Canada or Mexico and half of Europe and East Asia. Cutting of trade to those countries hurts us just as much as them. You seem to share Trump's dangerous view of the world where everyone is subordinate to the U.S. while we don't depend on anyone.

Comment Re:The give-a-shit factor. (Score 1) 394

On the other hand, a privacy zealot/encryption fan stands out like a sore thumb without raising the give-a-shit factor, potentially painting a target on your back.

That's precisely why you should encrypt. If there are too many "targets" out there then it becomes an ineffective targeting system. It's like a movie with too many red herrings.

Comment Re:Trump versus Clinton (Score 1) 500

The problem with your post, much like Trump's rhetoric, is that it paints in very broad strokes. You can't just will positive change. It requires a nuanced understanding of the political system along with the connections and staff to manipulate Washington.

Pointing out the over half of people are on the brink of poverty as a way of insinuating that it's somehow Obama's fault and Hilary will maintain the status quo is disingenuous, at best. It wasn't as if things were any different eight years ago. Income disparity has been a growing issue in this country for many decades.

Trump's "make changes" proposals are all either extremely vague (make America great!) or untenable (mass deportations and magic tax plans). Personally, I think staying the course, which I see as gradual improvement, is much better than derailing the whole thing. It seems likely that had we stayed the course after Bill Clinton's presidency by electing Al Gore then we could have avoided a lot of the trouble caused by W.

Slashdot Top Deals

But it does move! -- Galileo Galilei

Working...