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


Forgot your password?
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:Bet on the RUSSIANS!!!!` (Score 0) 89

Of course, the irony that Leftists don't understand is that the mainstream media are being called out for the Leftist shills that they are. First, there is a wiretap documented in their own reporting in the New York Times. Then Trump tweets it and it's suddenly false. Then, all of a sudden, people are starting to say that there's no proof of the Trump-Russia connection. Where's the true story? And, did Obama break the law by-- directly or indirectly-- using intelligence gathered on an American citizen?

If Progressives had the mental capacity, their heads would be exploding. But, they don't. Convenient short-term memory, and blind obedience and adherence to propaganda, has created a bunch of robots who will never engage in intelligent discourse, let alone understand nuance.

Comment Re: Indeed! (Score 0) 333

Political correctness is fascism. Ironic that you would equate facism to Trump, when the liberals-- who control the mainstream media-- are decrying free speech. In fact, it's beyond political correctness. The mainstream narrative (which, for some reason, is self-titled "news" rather than "opinions originating from lazy and unbalanced journalism") is empowering people to thumb their noses at those who might dig a little more deeply and not fall for the hyperbole that characterizes them as racist anti-semite xenophobes.

What scares me is the revelation that the mainstream media has been blatantly compromised by the Democrats; and, further, that the source of that information became the issue, rather than the horrifying reality that this compromised media is currently ushering in.

Look in the mirror before pulling out the old "Hitler fascist" argument.

Comment Re:Have they added DRM yet? (Score 1) 303

they put better mixes on records for pure marketing reasons.

Not quite, although overall I agree with your assessment of the situation. Among other things, vinyl actually requires what I would call a "dumbed down" mix/master-- that is, it can't be too loud; and, in the low end, there can't be too much stereo information. All of these are related to the physical limitation of the needle and the grooves necessary to reproduce sound on vinyl.

That said, depending on the genre you like, you might like vinyl *mixes* (which *are* in many cases different mixes than ones you might hear today that are "remastered for iTunes"). This is because songs on vinyl are mixed and mastered more dynamically (or, "quietly"). Modern digital music tends to be really really loud, so the difference between loud and soft parts is kind of negligible. Certain genres, of course, lend themselves to loud-- EDM, heavy metal...

I really don't care about vinyl either way, except that I think people who think it is a better medium for music are complete suckers. The science behind "vinyl is better" is one to be understood in terms of packaging and tactile experience, and has zero to do with audio in terms of the vinyl medium's ability to reproduce sound vs. digital.

Comment Re:Only remove it for California (Score 1) 218

Questions: How is the publishing of a fact in any way, shape, or form "discriminatory?" I could understand an argument that such a fact could be *used to discriminate* by one so inclined to use it as such. But I simply do not understand how this law is not a complete, literal, unquestionable violation of free speech? Or, have we gotten to a point of political correctness that we must protect the alternate realities that facts discriminate against?

Comment Re:LOTR (Score 1) 60

Please elaborate on his hostility to "free speech?" It was the democrats and biased media, along with the blindly faithful Hillary suppporters, who complained about his speech and wondered how to stop it.

Make no mistake about it, the democrats would absolutely love to start implementing speech laws to shut down non-politically-correct speech. The irony is that the word "fascist" is used to describe Trump and Trump supporters by the most fascist regime in the US: Liberals. In fact, how much more fascist can you get than trying to nullify a cleanly won Democratic election?

Comment Re:I used to think Assange was smart (Score 1) 315

So strange that this is marked as "insightful." The emails reveal Hillary to be two-faced, corrupt, and willing to leverage her power and influence in a fascistic manner to support her rise to the presidency. These revelations are that, and only that. The actual dumb conclusion is the notion that these email revelations are "actively supporting" Donald Trump.

Wake up! And, welcome to democracy. Some people like the candidate you don't like. The "dumb" that you speak of is from that sniveling tower of arrogance that you and other Hillary apologists love to speak from. The real story is that-- like/believe it or not-- Hillary's *real* story is one of corruption, and conduct possibly punishable under law.

Both Hillary and Trump are completely repulsive candidates in completely different ways. Luckily, there are other choices we can vote for. I will vote for Johnson. (And, here come the regurgitated big-media rebuttals of this. My favorite is the "wasted vote" rebuttal, which is simply a lie that-- when unwittingly perpetuated-- enhance the erosion of democracy that we're currently witnessing in the US.)

Comment The Real Story? (Score 1) 435

Isn't the real story that hacking is the only current flavor of journalism that reveals real information about important stuff that would otherwise not be reported by "real" journalists (who are on the payroll of {$politician or $big_corporation})? It's disturbing how many Hillary shills dismiss the content of the leaked emails as "fake" and give her a pass for what appears to be some authentic and relatively "not-fit-for-office" activity.

Comment You can't really control memes. (Score 1) 163

Admittedly being pedantic, but: The definition of "meme" has really been bastardized by the existence of stupid Facebook photos with humorous text in them.

A meme-- quoting wikipedia-- will "self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures." An example of an *actual* meme is that of God. God is, essentially, a human idea that has quite successfully survived thousands and thousands of years. It self-replicates through the fear or imagination of human beings who pass dogma to their offspring, mutates through different flavors of those dogmas, and responds to the culture of the times in an often populist way to ensure the continued acceptance of it.

So, while controlling "memes" in the bastardized Facebook definition context could be *somewhat* enforceable, controlling *actual* memes-- long-held self-evolving humanity-wide ideas-- would be impossible. In fact, the notion of trying to prohibit the FB memes perpetuates the age-old meme of distrusting authority.

I recommend reading a bit about memes; memetic theory is enlightening in the context of propaganda, mass media, etc. I often think about this theory when folks pointedly or emotionally ask, "How the hell could you believe that?" This book is pretty good:

Comment Re: Needs to stop (Score 1) 500

I defy you to even state the US's objective in Syria to begin with. How are we to measure success for that particular military intervention? The real story about Aleppo is the foreign policy mess that Clinton bears much responsibility for. In fact, Johnson is an avid opponent of regime change. Did you even catch the fact that, in their rush to discredit Johnson, the New York Times misidentified Aleppo itself?

It's advantageous to Clinton for this stale "Aleppo" gaffe to remain in the news: She feels the threat of a candidate who won't be afraid to call her out on all of her BS with specific statistics and actual plans (e.g. her criminal justice reform proposal based on "investing in trust" rather that ending the unsuccessful "war on drugs").

This stupid gaffe is still in the news, and yet the Clinton email story has somehow slipped under the radar, even as more evidence of wrongdoing is exposed. I'm surprised that you didn't mention the "world leader" gaffe. That's not as juicy, though, because it's relatively easy to find the actual interview with the *actual* question that Johnson was asked: "Name one world leader *that you admire.*" So, the "unable to name a world leader" thing is pretty much moot.

I understand why ill-informed sheep would continue to perpetuate the "Gary is an idiot" meme, but wake up and look at the issues. The mainstream media are Clinton shills with a vested interest in discrediting Johnson as much as possible leading up to the election (and, skirting the real issues that Clinton won't ever resolve).

I do find some comfort in this election, though: The lack of credibility of mainstream media in the US is clearer than ever. And, I dare say, the fact that millenials-- who consume 0% of old media-- support Johnson speaks to the fact that a campaign's saavy use of new media to raise awareness and offer fuller, non-biased information can make a huge difference. No, you won't see that side of this election story in mainstream media. To me, this signals one more step on the path to the death of mainstream media, and the rise of social media as the source for real journalism.

Slashdot Top Deals

A sine curve goes off to infinity, or at least the end of the blackboard. -- Prof. Steiner