Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re:these new companies trying to get around old la (Score 5, Insightful) 253

skipping the dealer allows the manufacturer to set the price. and they would never fix the price with a defacto monopoly, right?

Haha, what? You're whining about a manufacturer selling their product for whatever price they want to sell it at? Tesla "fixing the price" on their own products that they make and sell themselves, that's funny. How does a single company "fix" the price? They don't "fix" the price, they set the price, that's the price, anyone can buy it at that price. You might as well whine about McDonald's "fixing" the price on a Big Mac because they cost the same anywhere you buy them.

Tesla doesn't have a monopoly on electric cars, and they don't have a monopoly on cars. If they want to set the price of their cars at $100,000, fine, they won't get a ton of sales but if they make a profit then why do you care? If they want to compete with other car manufacturers then they can lower the price, or they can design another model which costs less to produce so that they can reach a bigger market and still make a profit. Guess what Tesla decided to do with the Model 3. Go ahead, guess.

Tesla doesn't have a monopoly on anything except Tesla cars, and you don't have some right to buy a Tesla car for $10k if they don't want to sell them for that much. Don't bitch and moan about old laws that were bought and paid for that shouldn't exist any more. The car market at this point is too big and has too many competitors for price fixing, because if that happens there is a major opportunity and incentive for one of those many competitors to undercut everyone else and make huge sales.

Comment Re:With all due respect to Mr. Hawking and us... (Score 2) 279

In fact, we achieved a manned trip with a successful return less than 1 lifetime after we first achieved controlled, powered flight.

I think about that a lot, I think it's pretty crazy that humans have had some form of civilization for tens of thousands of years, and we only learned how to build a machine capable of controlled powered flight just over 100 years ago, and it was only a little more than 50 years after that when we put people on the moon. It took so long to get the understanding and technology needed for the first steps, and after that it just took off (literally!). It's pretty amazing. It's also pretty amazing that there are people out there who think we know everything by now.

When people say FTL isn't possible, time travel isn't possible, etc. they do so because they know what they're talking about.

Just like everyone thought that Newton knew what he was talking about, until Einstein came along. We're always going to have people who are capable of thinking about things in a way that no one ever has, and those people are going to once again figure something out that no one else had before. Maybe one of those things is going to concern moving from one place to another in less time than would be possible if you actually traveled that entire linear distance.

I'm not going to try and argue with you whether or not any human today knows how to travel large distances through space quickly, but if you're going to try to argue that the things that we know today are never going to change then I think your entire premise is stupid and ignorant of history. The amount of things that we don't know about the universe is staggering. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you as much.

Comment Re:just one thing to say (Score 1) 610

Johnson could be polling at 50% and they would still find a way to argue that he shouldn't be in the debates. The media needs to grow a set of nuts and get back to actual journalism instead of relaying the day's talking points. The 2 big parties need to be held to task for excluding other candidates from the debates, but the media won't touch that story or else their own debate access and participation and access to the candidates will be ripped away.

Comment Re:just one thing to say (Score 1) 610

This is a winner take all democracy....at least separately within the two elected branches. That is the reason we have a two party system.

I don't think that's correct. Presidents have come from 5 different parties. George Washington was not a member of any political party, because they didn't exist then, and the Constitution says nothing about them either. They aren't necessary for the kind of system we have, they came about on their own. In 1832 4 parties got electoral college votes. In the next election a Democrat defeated 4 Whigs who got votes. From 1844 to 1860 either 3 or 4 parties got votes in each election. 1880 had 3 parties with votes, 1884, 1888, and 1892 each had 4, and that went on well into the 20th century. In 1912, for example, the Democratic, Progressive, Republican, Socialist, and Prohibition parties each had candidates in the election. T. Roosevelt formed the Progressive party after leaving the Republican party. In 1968 George Wallace of the American Independent party got 46 electoral votes. The last non-D/R to get electoral votes was in 1972.

After 1972 our elections look very boring. This two-party crap is a new thing for the country. It's not how the system was designed, the Ds and Rs decided to seize power and make it this way. They did that in 1988 to make sure that only they got elected.

It's not because some malign agency made it that way.

Yes it is. The malign agency is the Commission on Presidential Debates. Read the "Criticism" section of the above article. This part sounds pretty malign to me:

At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Paul G. Kirk, Democratic national chairman, said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.

The vast majority of American electoral history is against you on this.

You have that exactly backwards. It's only the very recent history that is against 3rd parties, and it was manufactured to be this way by those in power in order for them to stay in power.

At worse, they muddy up the waters and only serve as spoilers for one of the candidates.

Considering that the country is supposed to choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich, hopefully they spoil both candidates.

Comment Re:just one thing to say (Score 1) 610

Here's an article that has some graphics and things that show how fucked up this election cycle is:


I already knew this was true (although the last poll I saw had these people as a majority), that the major reason people are voting for either candidate is because they aren't the other one, they're voting against the other person instead of for the one they want.

The top concerns about each candidate are also pretty predictable. Trump supporters' biggest concern is his temperament, and Clinton supporters' biggest concern is her honesty. No surprises.

I literally laughed out loud at the last graph, and then became sad that this is the way it is:

If Trump wins, 59% of respondents will be disappointed or angry.

If Clinton wins, 49% of respondents will be disappointed or angry.

Look at the other lines in that graph though - among Trump supporters and Clinton supporters both, there is a non-zero number of people who will be disappointed if their candidate wins. Among Trump supporters there is even a non-zero number of people who will be *angry* if he wins. I don't know if those results reflect upon the intelligence of the respondents and their ability to comprehend the questions, or take into account the apparent fact that some Trump supporters are angry no matter what, but it's funny. It goes the other way too, for both groups of supporters there is a non-zero number of them who will be relived or excited if the other person wins. But according to the link to the actual study, and based on my expert analysis of the pixels in the graph, both of those results are probably within the margin of error (with the possible exception of Trump supporters who will be disappointed if he wins, which I can understand).

This election is a joke. I don't hold it against you or any of my other friends who wants to vote for Clinton or Trump, but I just can't stomach either of them and I don't like it when people try to tell me that voting for another candidate (as opposed to staying home and not voting at all, for example) is either a waste of a vote or a vote for some other candidate. Just like a lot of people are voting against one of the candidates, I'm voting against both of them.

Comment Re:just one thing to say (Score 1) 610

Yes, I have a bias against someone who has shown that she is untrustworthy and dishonest based on her actions. It would be hard not to have a bias against someone like that, but you seem pretty willing to ignore it.

And it's not because people like me telling them that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump. It's because they are both terrible candidates in their own right.

No, that's not the reason. The reason is because the entire system has been set up and run by the Democratic and Republican parties to make sure that they stay in power. That's why they call media outlets and yell at them and threaten the careers of journalists when they report negative things about their candidates or parties, it's why they deliver talking points to the media which the journalists just go on air and repeat, and it's why the media can't cover any candidate who is not a Democrat or Republican without taking flak from the 2 parties. It's why only those 2 parties are allowed to debate in prime time on TV, you can thank the Commission on Presidential Debates for that one. They set up the system with those rules to make sure that they stay in power, and the media helps them out by letting everyone know that there are only 2 candidates and that no one else a chance. And people like you happily take up the same line. After the announcement that only 2 candidates would be allowed to participate in the debate, NPR was kind enough to let Gary Johnson call in. Did you hear that? I'll forgive you if you missed it, because he was only on for about 90 seconds. She asked him to give the opening statement he would have given if he was allowed and he quickly made a case for himself, he got interrupted a few times by people trying to tell him that he really has no chance, and then they started up the music to play him off the air while he was in the middle of talking. This is one of 3 or 4 people who could even conceivably win the office of the president and they give him 90 seconds of air time with several interruptions and then play him off the air. You can't tell me that they media doesn't push the line that there are only 2 choices, and the reason they do that is because if they don't play along then they don't get interviews, they don't get debate sponsorships or get to supply moderators or get to air the debates, etc. It's a pay to play system, if the media plays along then they get the benefits from the Democratic and Republican parties, and if they don't then they get shunned. It's a pity that this country has a media that has no balls and takes all that shit, but that's the way it is.

Don't try to sit there and tell me that Gary Johnson would not be able to seriously challenge the two most disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling, because that's bullshit. But, we'll never know, will we? He doesn't get the airtime, he doesn't get the exposure, so we'll never know how people would have responded to him or how things would be different if the people taking polls listed his name first or if he was included in the televised debates. We'll never know, just like we'll never know why Clinton wanted all of her emails removed.

If you want people to take third party candidates seriously then you go find an actual popular individual who can grab votes from both the right and left sides of the country, who isn't corrupt, who garners enough respect in order to form compromises, and who has the ability to generate enough funds to run a successful national presidential campaign.

Why, just so that person can be roundly dismissed by the media and pundits on every major network while they tell everyone that this person has no chance and that you really only have 2 choices? I'd rather try to change the system. That's not going to happen if I vote for a Democrat or a Republican again. It was shameful how the media treated Sanders, he was dismissed throughout the entire process. While he was mounting his campaign and gaining ground right in the middle of it the media was still talking about what happens in a Trump vs. Clinton matchup. They never even gave him a chance. When everyone hears that, then they believe that he doesn't have a chance. Now you're trying to tell me that any smaller party wouldn't have a chance wouldn't have a chance for any number of reasons other than the fact that the entire presidential election system is specifically set up to work against them. I hope you'll excuse me if I think you're full of shit for trying to push that line. The Trump and Sanders campaigns are the first sign that the wall is cracking, and I'm going to be damned if I try to help prop it up.

Comment Re:just one thing to say (Score 1) 610

Again, no third party option has any chance of winning.

And as long as the media and people like you keep trying to convince people that's true, they never will. I don't buy into it though, sorry.

Whether she broke the law or lied or whatever, she is still, by a wide wide margin, the far better option in this election.

Well, she did break the law, and she did lie, and I'm not willing to overlook that and vote for her. Is she better than Trump? Yes. But, sorry man, "better than Trump" is just not a reason to vote for someone to be the goddamn president. Seriously, the best thing that people can say about Clinton is that she is better than Trump. That's a major problem. But that doesn't stop you from trying to argue about her crimes and lies by saying that without knowledge of what she deleted (which she very obviously took pains to make sure that we don't know), we shouldn't judge her. We'll never know. Yeah, whatever, that's exactly the line she wants you to say. To me, that's enough to disqualify her. I don't want her in office doing shady shit behind everyone's back and covering it up and then saying "hey, you'll never know what I was doing so you shouldn't judge me for it." She's a lawyer, and she knows that if there's no body then she's not going to get convicted, so she's doing everything she can to get rid of the body. That's not someone I want leading the country, regardless of any opponent she faces.

Any vote for them is a vote for Trump.

That's always been such a stupid disingenuous line. It implies that those votes would automatically go for Clinton instead of the third party. That is completely wrong. Many Republicans might go third party, are you trying to suggest those are equivalent to Trump votes? Because they're fucking not. Trump DIDN'T GET THE DAMN VOTE, IT'S NOT A VOTE FOR HIM. A vote for him means that he has 1 more vote than Clinton, and that therefore Clinton needs TWO VOTES to counter that and win. She only needs one. It's not the same. Stop pushing that bullshit line and trying to convince everyone who believes your crap that they only have two choices. Let them vote for who they think represents their beliefs instead of trying to shame them or guilt them into voting for a lying criminal.

Comment Re:just one thing to say (Score 1) 610

I don't know man. I would never vote for Clinton anyway, so when I'm told that I need to vote for her because the other side of the system has put up a dangerous candidate, it just seems so stupid. It seems like this is exactly how they have the system set up to work. The only way that Hillary Clinton would possibly be able to get elected is if the Republicans found someone even more detestable than her, which they have managed to do, and the real funny thing about it is that the only person that Donald Trump could conceivably beat is Hillary Clinton. This is a race to the bottom. It's a Shakespearean tragedy the likes of which we haven't seen before. George H. W. Bush is saying he's going to vote for Hillary Clinton. Keep reading that sentence until you realize that this is bizarro world that we're living in. If George H. W. Bush voting for Clinton isn't a sign that the 2 parties are so much more alike than they are different than I don't know what is.

I want off the ride. I want them to stop it so I can get off. I've had enough. I don't think they're going to stop it on their own though, there are too many people who have been in power for too long and the money is flowing like a river. The number of people who want real change are a very small minority in Congress. If they aren't going to stop it on their own, then maybe it just needs to be burned down and built again. That's Trump getting elected. It's obviously not the result that most people would want, but they aren't going to change on their own. You can't put a heroin addict in charge of a room full of heroin and leave them there and tell them not to get high, they're going to get high because they're addicted to it.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Bernie get so much support from running a campaign centered around the idea that there is too much money in politics. I also think that's the #1 problem, and I also think that is a much greater threat than Trump. Clinton to me is a perfect poster child for that threat, which is why I can't just hold my nose and vote for her. She's literally the exact problem that I want to move away from, it doesn't help me to vote for the specific problem that I'm trying to avoid. If the United States crashes and flames out in a blaze of glory, it will be because of money. It will be because so many people have their hands in the pie and everyone tries to take their share all at once and there's nothing left for anything else. Hillary Clinton is off taking 6-figure paychecks from banks for speeches which do not get disclosed, and then she turns around and says that we need to rein in and control the banks. She doesn't mean that. She's the kind of person who will negotiate a trade deal in secret, where the only reason any citizen knows anything about it is because of leaks to the press, and then she'll try to jam that down everyone's throat so that the people are bound by a law that was negotiated without their input and in fact specifically kept from them. That's not democracy. Then she's going to turn around and say she opposes that deal because of Bernie's stance. You think she means that? No, I don't think she does. I think she gets into office, passes some meaningless amendments to the deal which she'll call a victory for progressives, and then pass it and talk about what a great deal it is.

I'm just sick of it. When Candidate Obama made all of these grand speeches about privacy and made promises about government surveillance, and then he got into office and renewed the Patriot Act, I said that I wasn't going to vote for a Democrat or a Republican any more. They tricked me enough. Just because one of them has managed to nominate a dangerous candidate doesn't mean I'm going to come back to them like an abused wife. I'm done with them, they had decades to prove that they had the best interests of the country at heart and they keep showing that it's all about them. I can't do it, sorry. It sucks if Trump gets elected but even if that happens there's a silver lining - Clinton and the political machine she's driving will have been defeated. I don't think that's a likely outcome, but even a Trump presidency has a silver lining. If he should be president then it may finally spur some changes to our electoral system that are long, long overdue. Or, if he loses and smaller parties have a better showing than they've gotten in decades, again maybe that will be enough to get enough people to start yelling at the media about giving an unbiased look at politics instead of just shoving 2 candidates in our faces, saying over and over and over that no one else has any chance, and that we must choose. But if Clinton wins then I expect that all of the worst parts of our system will continue for a long time.

If the Democrats cannot rally enough support to defeat somebody like Donald Trump, then they need to take a long, long look at themselves and think about why. This should be a 70/30 vote at worst for any Democratic candidate. If the Democrats think they are in danger of losing then they need to look inside themselves to find out why they're having such a hard time beating a candidate who is so obviously unqualified and even un-American. The answer is because we don't want what they're selling. But instead of thinking about coming out with a different product, they're only thinking about how to lie to people to get them to buy.

Slashdot Top Deals

He keeps differentiating, flying off on a tangent.