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


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

Comment Re:You're being silly (Score 1) 309

The evil libtardos aren't coming for your guns.

Well, Hillary Clinton thinks the Supreme Court is incorrect, and that we don't have the individual right to own guns. That what she says to her money people when she hopes the press isn't listening. She's also said she'd consider confiscation, a la Australia. And the left is cheering her lying, corrupt self into office - not least because they agree with her on this - the constitution is there to be "reinterpreted," as Clinton puts it.

Do you have any idea what you're chances are against a modern, mechanized army?

What does that matter? That's not why millions and millions of Americans own guns. They use them for sport, for hunting, and - as record numbers of recent buyers are showing in research - for self defense, especially in the context of social unrest. That's EXACTLY what the founders had in mind when they said that the government could not be allowed to have the monopoly on keeping and bearing arms: so that individuals could exercise their own rights to do so if and as they see fit. For whatever reason they see as appropriate. A standing army being necessary for the country, it's not to be considered justification for infringing the people's rights to their own tools of self defense. Sound familiar?

Stop caring so damn much about your precious firearms and start doing something about oppression brought on by wealth inequality.

Ah, I get it. Because someone else is prosperous, your right to vote is being oppressed. Or your right to assemble, or freely speak. Or your ability to go to school. Or your ability to ... which ability is it that you're being denied because someone else has money, again? It's not a fixed-sized pie, dude. If it was, we'd all be living in total poverty. But we're not. The standard of living has never been higher in human history. The "poor" live better than the vast majority of humanity ever could have dreamed.

Wage slavery? Get rid of nonsense like Obamacare, which went out of its way to entrench the system that prevents you from shopping across state lines for health insurance, and went out of its way to keep such services expensive by carefully avoiding tort reform at all costs. Or... do you mean that people who haven't trained themselves to do something valuable are finding it hard to move on in life? Yes, getting rid of our ability to defend ourselves will definitely fix that. We can only do one thing at a time, right?

Voter disenfranchisement? Yes, this is a real problem. We have millions of dead an ineligible people registered to vote. Every time a vote is cast in one of their names, that disenfranchises a person who is voting legitimately. When the Clinton campaign spreads around information, as we've just seen, about how to get illegal immigrants into the voting booth, that disenfranchises people who play by the rules. Definitely a serious problem, I agree. But the disenfranchising actions of voters mostly as encouraged by liberal activist groups go largely unprosecuted because that task would fall to the very party in power that encourages the crime. So, we have to live with it. Steps to mitigate it, like having to show who you are when you vote, just like you have to when you cash a government check, are considered "racist" by disingenuous people who know perfectly well it's not, but there you have it.

Hell, there are folks who matter talking about taking away women's right to vote.

They only "matter" in the sense that you're enjoying mentioning them. There is nobody with any prospect of infringing that liberty calling for that. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who certainly leans towards infringing constitutionally protected liberties and says so out loud, to great applause from the usual would-be little tyrants on the left.

It's been 8 years. Don't you think if he was going to do it he would have?

He knows he can't get what he wants past a legislature more inclined to protect those rights. He fails on that front because what he proposes - usually in the wake of some broken person killing some people - fails on the face of it to even address the actual problem (broken people). He doesn't propose making it easier to lock up crazy people, he proposes making it harder for law abiding, non-violent people to possess or transfer a firearm ... even though that would exactly nothing to stop, say, a Sandy Hook type incident. So every time he talks about "using his pen" to limit rights, it fails because, of course, people see right through the total lack of causality in the chain of things he pretends he's addressing. He's had multiple unconstitutional executive orders smacked down in the courts, exactly as they should have been. Hillary Clinton wants a court that would prevent those checks and balances from impacting her agenda (see above-mentioned confiscatory sensibilities and assertion that, for example, the second amendment doesn't mean what the founders said it means).

Comment Re:Cui Bono? (Score 1, Insightful) 137

They demonstrate subterfuge, lying

The emails we've all be pawing through for the last several weeks (not just Podesta's, obviously - Clinton's own, as released by the FBI and State in as absolutely slow a manner as they can muster, when those should have been FOIA-able records the day she left office) demonstrate that she was lying under oath before congress. The bulk of the emails, yes, simply show that she and her team lie regularly to their supporters and the voters, on almost every matter before them. But what matters is her fictions surrounding her provisioning and use of her home server to do official business, and her destruction of records after being subpoenaed for them by congress.

I don't really care about the rest of it. That the (now) head of the DNC was just caught red-handed providing Clinton with a verbatim debate question in advance of the event (and, of course, now lying about that) or a hundred other little behind-the-scenes bits of tawdriness and sleaze is indeed just typical politics. But lying before congress, destroying federal records, and playing fast and loose with classified material (in a way that would prevent anyone else from ever holding a federal job again, and possibly landing them in prison) actually matters.

Comment Re:Cui Bono? (Score 0, Flamebait) 137

So your take on all of those thousands of emails, including the ones that further demonstrate the lying and corruption of the Clinton machine, are ... what, fake? Are you aware of explicit, credible denials about, say, the accuracy of those Podesta emails (in, say, the form of Podesta or his correspondents releasing alternate versions of them) ... that nobody else knows about? No? Didn't think so.

Comment Re: Equal amounts? (Score 1) 310

Barring that, I think pushing Johnson or Stein into double digits would be fantastic.

Why? Getting them in to double digits is guaranteeing that Clinton will be in power and will shape the Supreme Court for next 20-30 years. Her loathsomeness extends to her ideology, not just her corrupt ways of working people and making herself wealthy at the public trough. She's anti-liberty. Trump can be a tool, socially, but we know which direction is SCOTUS nominees will lean: towards contstructionism, not tyrannical liberal activism a la Clinton. Having a hissy fit and voting for the Libertarian or Green candidates is guaranteeing the Hillary Clinton will be our chief law enforcement officer for at least the next four years, and will seat justices that are as hostile as she is to the liberties protected by the constitution.

Comment Re:Equal amounts? (Score 1) 310

How about not sensationalising everything they publish?

They publish non-sensational stuff all the time. But written evidence reinforcing our long understanding of Hillary Clinton's parade of corruption is rather sensational here in the weeks right before millions of people who know she's a corrupt liar none the less make her the chief law enforcement officer of the country. You don't think things related to that deserve some attention?

The "stuff they're leaking" is ABOUT politics. It's the DNC (a political entity) and her campaign (a political entity) making back room deals with the media, among others, to spin for her in her quest for power. How can leaks that are entirely about a politician's conduct and the behavior of her supporting minions in their pursuit of the White House be anything BUT political in nature?

Comment Re: Great! (Score 1) 260

We agree on the rights that we agree to protect. Then when someone decides they don't care about that agreement, we agree on what to do about that person if they act in violation of our agreement. If someone outside of our agreement decides they don't care how we operate as a society, and looks to destroy it (or parts of it) for the lulz or for territorial acquisition etc., then we agree on when and to what degree we do something about it.

You're "that's cute" bit of phony condescension shows you to be just another whiner who likes to pretend we can't decide on and enforce the protection of such things because your notion of what you're entitled to is at odds with everyone else's. Just to help your cause, you're complaining about other people's greed, to fake insulating yourself from anyone else's criticism that you're too lazy to get involved in the defense of the rights we recognize. So, just another anonymously craven, lazy whiner troll who thinks that calling other people cute gets them off the hook for their own intellectual cowardice. Carry on! Just remember you're not kidding anyone.

Comment Re:AI -- FAR more hype than substance (Score 1) 205

Filtering out extraneous data and acting on the environment is something all living things can do but computers are horrible at.

Unless computers have been trained to do exactly that. We're (genetically) trained to do so through natural selection. Things like software controlled radios are trained to do the exact same thing through careful programming in comparatively short time, rather than across millions of years of trial and error.

Comment Re: Great! (Score 1) 260

Yeah, Dyn is just a bunch of clueless amateurs. If only they'd asked you how to mitigate a colossal DDoS flood. You'd tell them: security! Because ... the problem with a publicly exposed service that doesn't work if it's not publicly exposed, is that it doesn't have good enough security to keep the public traffic out. Gotcha.

Comment Re: Great! (Score 1) 260

Brave words in defense of a social media platform ...

I'm not defending Twitter, I'm defending YOUR right, and mine, to be free of script kiddies trashing things just because they can. And I was replying to a user here who was cheering on a DDoS attack and hoping it permanently destroyed something he doesn't like. I didn't see that user, or you, proposing or providing an alternative that unicorns its way past your standards.

So, you don't like SV's social media systems. What have you got designed that will work better? Be specific.

Comment Re:AI -- FAR more hype than substance (Score 2) 205

But the things you listed aren't features of intelligence, they're bugs in our brains (or simply, things that natural selection de-emphasized out of comparative irrelevance in your basic cave man survival scenario).

If those short term memories were more reliably committed to long-term, or there was no real distinction between those things, would that really be a disqualifyier for intelligence?

Slashdot Top Deals

After an instrument has been assembled, extra components will be found on the bench.