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

 



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

Comment Re:Johnson and anti-incumbent (Score 1) 380

But it's a black and white matter. Something you're wishing it weren't. If you vote for Clinton or Trump, you're making a simple choice - support one or the other. If you have the ability to vote, and choose to either vote for someone that cannot win or choose not to vote at all, then depending on your local demographics, you are still - through that choice - supporting either Trump or Clinton. That you're pretending otherwise means you really need to re-evaluate your own understanding of what's at stake.

It's people like you who allow the two parties to have their power. The only winning move is not to play their game. Think for yourself, and realize you are not their peon.

Comment Re:Cell Phone (Score 1) 195

The trouble, is unless you go to great lengths in your due diligence, you are unlikely to discover the HOA and the HOA rules until the final stages of the transaction, when you have to sign on the dotted line, and the HOA rules are in the fine print on page 562, and you won't understand that they exist or what they mean without a consult with a real-estate attorney that has your interests at heart, and not making a quick sale.

For the house I'm currently in the process of buying, we were notified up front of the existence of an HOA, and requested and reviewed its covenants prior to continuing with the purchase.

Comment Re:Not a problem with credit unions (Score 1) 110

A non-profit is just that, non-profit. It means their revenues and expenses at the end of the year balance, hence no net profit.

That doesn't mean they can't make a profit, it's just that profit is spent before the fiscal year ends so it's back to zero. Now, some non-profits are arranged so they make very little profit on what they do - thus giving lower prices to everyone, and the profit is then used to pay salaries and all that. But it doesn't have to be that - it can be making ridiculous amounts of profit and they then spend it on something else.

For an example of this, look at the College Board - they are the makers of many of the academic tests out there, and they charge an arm and a leg (ask any student who has to take the SATs). But any other standardized test is probably administered by them as well. They rake in the money, both in the tests, the study guides they sell, and many other things. So much so they spend their profit on luxury hotels and other things - as a non-profit they have to spend it all to even it out.

Of course, most credit unions are less evil and spread any profits as dividends to the members.

But when most people say non-profit, they actually just mean tax-exempt. The organization may make a net profit, but due to its nature is not taxed.

Comment Re:"The CFPB declined... (Score 1) 341

I bank with Wells Fargo because they bought the bank I was going to before, and it's a little bit of a pain in the ass to change banks. I don't pay any fees for my various accounts there. I also don't keep very much money there, because their interest rates are comparable with other national banks: 0.01% APY on a savings account, 0.05% on a CD. You can trivially do better than that with on-line options.

But, basically, inertia. I haven't had sufficient motivation to switch.

You can do at least 15-95 times better than that. 0.75% APY with CapitalOne, 0.95% APY with Discover.

Comment Re:almost as soon (Score 1) 259

> ...my computer BSOD's [blue screen of death] and force restarts almost as soon as I plug my Kindle in.

Windows 10 is anticipating the attachment of the device and prematurely crashes? That's pretty efficient.

If it said "sooner than" you would be correct. But it says "almost as soon as," which means after.

Comment Re:wtf (Score 1) 246

Does this work (from dictionary.law.com)?

theft

n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).

Comment Re:Retaliation? (Score 1) 393

Protect themselves above all else. That's just not the mentality a poloce officer needs to have.

If you really think this, you're an idiot. You mean to tell me that in a potentially lethal situation I would choose my own safety first? Wow... so, why don't you share your wisdom on what they are supposed to do in a potentially lethal situation?

I would wager that most people would choose to see their family instead of incurring more unknown potentially lethal risk.

Good point. I always assumed the police motto was "serve and protect [the public]", but I guess maybe it's just "serve and protect [ourselves]".

Comment Re:what a wonderful program (Score 1) 565

Conservatives don't hate Obama because "Black" or Hillary because "Vagina". They hate them because of the shitty job they've done and the horrible direction this country is headed.

Bullshit. Conservatives hated Obama before he was even elected. You didn't see any liberals among the birther idiots, and that was a straight-up racist movement. And the conservatives have been hating on Hillary Clinton for over 20 years now - for no apparent reason, so one can only conclude that it is, in fact, because of "vagina".

Exactly! Conservatives only hate people based on race and sex. That's why they hate Bernie so much, too.

Submission + - FBI may be able to get your emails without warrant (theintercept.com)

mi writes: A provision snuck into the still-secret text of the Senate’s annual intelligence authorization would give the FBI the ability to demand individuals’ email data and possibly web-surfing history from their service providers using those beloved "National Security Letters" — without a warrant and in complete secrecy.

Submission + - When DNA Implicates the Innocent (scientificamerican.com)

schwit1 writes: The criminal justice system’s reliance on DNA evidence, often treated as infallible, carries significant risks.

In December 2012 a homeless man named Lukis Anderson was charged with the murder of Raveesh Kumra, a Silicon Valley multimillionaire, based on DNA evidence. The charge carried a possible death sentence. But Anderson was not guilty. He had a rock-solid alibi: drunk and nearly comatose, Anderson had been hospitalized—and under constant medical supervision—the night of the murder in November. Later his legal team learned his DNA made its way to the crime scene by way of the paramedics who had arrived at Kumra's residence. They had treated Anderson earlier on the same day—inadvertently “planting” the evidence at the crime scene more than three hours later. The case, presented in February at the annual American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting in Las Vegas, provides one of the few definitive examples of a DNA transfer implicating an innocent person and illustrates a growing opinion that the criminal justice system's reliance on DNA evidence, often treated as infallible, actually carries significant risks.

Slashdot Top Deals

fortune: cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.

Working...