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 Here's a good example (Score 1) 268

You are a fucking idiot. The problem is people like you who have no fucking clue about reality, but seem to think your worthless fucked in the head opinion means something. The problem with the right is their base is the most gullible, uneducated, self serving, anti-American, anti-Christian pieces of shit around.... and their politicians are all lying sacks of shit.

Here's a good example of my point. This post adds nothing to the conversation, it's simply a leftist vomiting insults at the other side.

Look, I want there to be competition among politicians. I want the left and the right to compete against each other for best policies, best governance, and best leadership.

I'm an independent, so I'm free to vote for whichever side I want in any election. The left has several positions I agree with, such as abortion rights for women, universal health care, and social safety net (and others).

I'd really *really* like to support your side, and have sided with these issues in the past, but your group is just so toxic right now that no one wants to have anything to do with you.

A recent poll showed that about 5% of Trump voters regret voting for him, but almost twice as many (9%) Clinton voters now regret voting for her(*).

Your group is protesting the outcome of fair elections that you participated in, it's whining and cursing about unfair rules that everyone agreed to. Your group is breaking windows, smashing cars, and lighting things on fire. And because of it, people are regretting having supported you.

You lefties just don't get it. You could get your way by earning respect, being smarter and better than your opponents.

You don't look to yourselves as a way to succeed, your only action is to make other people look worse.

(*) Which, BTW, erases and reverses the popular vote that Clinton won.

Comment All about the fight (Score 1, Insightful) 268

Or more accurately, a backlash against subsidies - $10 per megawatt hour.

It's a middle finger to progressives.

This is the problem with the political right at the moment. They're not trying to correct the market or protect local jobs, they're trying to rile up their base by pissing off people concerned about global warming.

And the problem with the left is that they can't compromise and won't evolve.

I was just listening to Bill Maher from last night, and all the liberals encouraging the audience to fight, disrupt, oppose, insult(*), and combat everything the right wants to do.

Nowhere did anyone say "we have to become better". Nothing about making better policies, making more intelligent arguments, doing things voters want, making the country better, or anything that could be considered noble.

The fundamental difference between the left and the right, through the campaign and after, is that the right has tried to make themselves the better option, while the left tried to make the *other side* the worse option. Trump's speeches were warm and inclusive, saying essentially "we're in this together, we can win, we can do better". Clinton's speeches, delivered by others during campaign rallies, were essentially throwing insults at the other side.

I don't think anyone on the left has a clue how ineffective their campaign of crying, whining, and insulting is. Their actions are not turning minds and swaying the voters they will need if they want to win future elections.

I have no idea how they can continue with this ludicrous behaviour, but I'm sure the right will continue to laugh at them while they do it.

(*) One of the panel members was saying "always call racism".

Comment Trump won for lots of reasons (Score 1) 1433

In the rust belt. Full stop. Young people, blacks and Latinos stayed home. If you doubt me 538 had a meticulously sourced article on the subject. Hilary was arrogant. She assumed no sane country would elect Trump. She was wrong, and we're all gonna pay for it. For God's sake people, vote in your mid terms.

Nate Silver is a smart guy, but he relies too much on the models and not the context or the assumptions.

The actual context is that Hillary lost the popular vote by a small margin, which means that *any* of about two dozen reasons could have flipped the election the other way.

It's like viewing a stack of books one inch higher than another stack, and saying that the reason is a specific book halfway up isn't big enough.

The reality is that Clinton could have done better in any one of : her political dealings during the election (getting debate answers, screwing Bernie supporters, superdelegates, and so on), her financing and backing (Moroccan meeting, Saudi donations, Soros), her image (not attending rallies and letting others do her campaigning for her, coming across as cold and unfeeling, "I feel your pain"), or her past actions (the server, her actions during Benghazi, Russian unfreeze, Clinton Foundation shenanigans).

It's hard to imagine Trump doing better in any of his several categories (meaning: there's nothing he could have done to mitigate).

Pretty-much any one of these would have upped her popular vote by the 1% she needed to beat Trump and win several more electoral colleges. The reliable polls pointed out that she had some 1024 ways to win, while Trump had only four.

538 isn't the oracle of prediction that everyone thinks it is. Nate's basic premise is that "past performance predicts future actions", which has been completely disproven this year.

So for example, Nate predicted that Trump's presidency would go down in flames early last year, predicted 80% chance Trump would lose the general election, and noted that Congressional endorsements are the best predictor of the primary candidate; meaning, Ted Cruse would win the primary.

538 is racking up a long list of failed predictions.

Comment And? (Score 1) 62

Both searches return the Chrome/Firefox main site as the top entry.

The Wikipedia article is 2nd below Chrome, followed by Chrome news. The Wikipedia article is below Mozilla news: because they recently changed their logo, the news apparently has higher saliency just now.

The "People also search for" shows the other browser in first place; IOW, IE is not given top billing in the "also search for" listing.

This seems cromulent, I'm not sure why this doesn't sit well with you.

What about any of this is unacceptable to you?

Comment One action does not define a man (Score 0, Troll) 552

anybody who has defended him at this point is either stupid or naive

We are not defending the man. We are defending the fundamental principle of free expression. Assange is not being persecuted because he "raped" anyone, but because he said things that powerful people didn't like. That is wrong, and isn't any less wrong just because he is a slimeball weasel.

And furthermore, one action does not define a man.

And further further, he may simply be waiting until Manning is *actually* released before giving himself up.

Assange tweeted (about 12h ago) that he would be willing to give himself up in any event if the US would guarantee his rights. And the White House said specifically that it wasn't a quid-pro-quo move, which would seem to release Assange from his promise.

The left likes to take only the one side of things and blow them out of proportion: Assange's heart is black as coal, he's completely untrustworthy, a rapist, self-centered egotist who cares for nothing except his own aggrandizement.

Since publishing dirt on Democrats, that is...

Submission + - Toy inspired medical centrifuge costing under 1 dollar

colinwb writes: Stanford researchers (link has video) have developed a human-powered medical centrifuge, costing 20 cents, based on a whirligig children's toy. As proof of concept, it can separate malaria parasites from blood cells in 15 minutes, and the parasites can be identified using a cheap microscope previously reported on Slashdot.

A Nature article and video, with useful caveats about whether this will actually be used, and a full description with diagrams and seriously impressive mathematics. They've also applied for a Guinness World Record of the fastest rotational speed from a human-powered device: 125,000 rpm.

Submission + - Mapping the brain functions of extinct animals

brindafella writes: How can scientists map the brain functions of an extinct animal? The technique is called diffusion tensor imaging, and it has recently mapped the preserved brains of two thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus), extinct as of 1936 in Tasmania, the island state of Australia. Thylacine were the largest known carnivorous marsupial (pouched mammal) of modern times. Diffusion tensor imaging looks at how water diffuses inside parts of the brain. Using it with traditional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the researchers mapped how molecules moved through the brain of the thylacine while it was alive to reveal the neural wiring of different brain regions. They tested the technique with a brain of a similar animal, a Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii), preserved at about the same time, and the brain of a recently deceased Devil.

Submission + - Female Shark Learns To Reproduce Without Males After Years Alone (newscientist.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A female shark separated from her long-term mate has developed the ability to have babies on her own. Leonie the zebra shark (Stegostoma fasciatum) met her male partner at an aquarium in Townsville, Australia, in 1999. They had more than two dozen offspring together before he was moved to another tank in 2012. From then on, Leonie did not have any male contact. But in early 2016, she had three baby sharks. Intrigued, Christine Dudgeon at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and her colleagues began fishing for answers. One possibility was that Leonie had been storing sperm from her ex and using it to fertilize her eggs. But genetic testing showed that the babies only carried DNA from their mum, indicating they had been conceived via asexual reproduction. Some vertebrate species have the ability to reproduce asexually even though they normally reproduce sexually. These include certain sharks, turkeys, Komodo dragons, snakes and rays. However, most reports have been in females who have never had male partners. In sharks, asexual reproduction can occur when a female’s egg is fertilized by an adjacent cell known as a polar body, Dudgeon says. This also contains the female’s genetic material, leading to “extreme inbreeding”, she says. “It’s not a strategy for surviving many generations because it reduces genetic diversity and adaptability.” Nevertheless, it may be necessary at times when males are scarce. “It might be a holding-on mechanism,” Dudgeon says. “Mum’s genes get passed down from female to female until there are males available to mate with.” It’s possible that the switch from sexual to asexual reproduction is not that unusual; we just haven’t known to look for it, Dudgeon says.

Comment Racist or not (Score 1) 124

This is what racists actually believe.

We have to get back into the mode where we can make verifiable statements without the other side calling "racist" all the time.

At this point, I think it's a knee-jerk reaction that the left "just always does". Always call "racist"! If it shuts down the conversation, great! If not, you've lost nothing and can try something else.

It's historically clear that local Democratic rule of minority areas has failed. Areas like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Ferguson, Watts, Memphis, Flint, and so on.

Saying this is not being racist.

Detroit, as an example, is well known for graft and corruption. Democratic policies at the national level encouraged manufacturing jobs to leave the area, resulting in massive unemployment and a long drift into squalor.

Saying this is also not being racist.

The situation can realistically be described as an experiment that failed, and perhaps the reverse experiment should be tried: hold local governments responsible for their actions with stiff penalties and jail time, and reversing the national trend to bring back local jobs.

Saying this is also not being racist.

This is what racists actually believe.

Racists actually believe that blacks are inferior to whites.

Actually believing that we have political problems, failed policies with suggested improvements, and pathos for the state of our inner cities, is most definitely not something that racists believe.

Comment Because of Trump? You've got that backwards... (Score 5, Insightful) 82

Of all the things that are going to come out of the next 4 years the nonstop anti-consumer mergers (and the inevitable round after round of layoffs) is going to suck the hardest. This is pretty much why progressives fought to keep the $2 trillion in cash sitting offshore outside of American. Companies have pretty much admitted that almost none of that is going into R&D and instead they plan to spend it on M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions).

You mentioned "next 4 years" as if that were a Trump thing, but you've got it backwards.

Trump appears to be completely pro-consumer in his dealings with corporations; or in other words, a "populist" leader.

Recently he came out against the anti-consumer policies of big pharma, and intends to put pressure on them to reduce consumer costs overall.

He's met with several companies and suggested that there will be a tariff on off-shored work, with the result that several companies are pledging to keep work in America.

He's also convinced Boeing to reduce costs, which isn't a consumer benefit per-se, but it saves the government from being fleeced by Boeing a little.

It really appears that he's serious about making things better for the people. He's done a small amount before being elected, and appears to be trying to keep that campaign promise.

When the article about minimum H1B salaries of $100K, people were saying "well, he got one thing right".

Give him a chance.

He might actually make things better.

Submission + - Law for Autonomous Vehicles: Supporting an Aftermarket for Driving Computers (perens.com)

Bruce Perens writes: How will we buy self-driving cars, and how will we keep them running as self-driving software and hardware becomes obsolete much more rapidly than the vehicle itself? Boalt Hall legal professor Lothar Determann and Open Source Evangelist Bruce Perens are publishing an article in the prestigious Berkeley Technology Law Journal on how the law and markets might support an aftermarket for self-driving computers, rather than having the manufacturer lock them down or sell driving as a service rather than selling cars. The preprint is available to read now, and discusses how an Open Car, based on Open Standards and an Open Market, but not necessarily Open Source, can drive prices down and quality up over non-competitive manufacturer lock-in.

Comment Re:IT is amazing (Score 5, Insightful) 99

Most folks drink stale coffee. Try roasting your own (I use Sweet Maria's for supplies) or going somewhere with a roaster on site who is honest enough to tell you the roast date. It should be from 2 to 10 days ago. Flavor development in coffee is a rancidification process. Like cheese, you want to catch it when it is a little, but not too, rancid.

Slashdot Top Deals

It appears that PL/I (and its dialects) is, or will be, the most widely used higher level language for systems programming. -- J. Sammet