Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 365

Conservatives can't conserve anything. Its a brand name rather than an actual set of principles, and they hardly fight.

Trump is no conservative, but he is a fighter. That is probably why the base latched on to him, because he seems like he will actually fight rather than acquiesce like the Republican party has during my lifetime. They really do seem to play as the Generals to the Globe Trotters.

Comment Re:horse has left the barn (Score 1) 325

Harping on global warming in the first world countries and west is not going to do a thing. You have 6 billion people who want to industrialize and improve their standard of living through cheap energy. If you can somehow convince those people, and their governments, to hamstring their own short term progress for a long term gain you are one heck of a salesman.

Comment Re:Zero Risk (Score 1) 219

Let's do something nice on Slashdot for a change: a Colorado breweries love-in!

I'll start: GREAT DIVIDE. Probably my favorite from that state, right now. (Maybe because it's not distributed in my state, so I treasure it like I treasure other hard-to-gets.)

Avery and Oskar Blues are other near-favorites. Steamwork (though I'm not sure they package). Ska can be good.

What's yours? I wanna go on another CO shopping trip in a few weeks. Help me out.

Comment Re:Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not the (Score 1) 427

Former Lancaster CA resident here.

I don't know anything more about this story either. But it sounds highly atypical. Lancaster doesn't have its own police force, and contracts with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Dept. for coverage. As a general rule they're lighter-handed than the average metro cop shop, possibly because they're spread thinner and don't have time to pursue bullshit.

But a few years ago, when the Feds told L.A. County that they'd have to reduce their jail population -- they picked out the problem prisoners and dumped 'em wholesale in the Antelope Valley. What had been isolated perps sneaking around in the dark suddenly became swarms of perps boldly going in broad daylight. Theft abruptly grew from the usual petty urban stuff to a cottage industry (particularly for metal), and same for gangs and drugs.

So I'm thinking this might have been a sting against a large drug or metal-fencing operation, using the cellphone thing as cover for what they were really after, not to mention as a quick way to ID both those present and those who needed pursuing.

Not justifying their action (which was, IMO, blatantly unconstitutional), just thinking of rationale based on the local situation.

Comment Re:If the point was ... (Score 4, Insightful) 332

There's no proof that it has anything to do with Wikileaks, but in a world of IoT devices with no thought toward security, anyone who cares to do so can mount DDOS with the power of a national entity.

What's the point of doing what Assange and Wikileaks have been doing without any moral position? He isn't helping his own case.

Comment Re:Legal? (Score 2) 279

No, of course it is not legal to set a trap to intentionally hurt someone, even if you expect that the trap could only be activated by the person committing property theft or vandalism. Otherwise, you'd see shotguns built into burglar alarms.

Fire alarm stations sometimes shoot a blue dye which is difficult to remove or one which only shows under UV. Never stand in front of one when pulling the lever! But they are not supposed to hurt you.

And of course these booby traps generally are not as reliable as the so-called "inventor" thinks and tend to hurt the innocent.

Comment Re: OMG that's a dodgy check (Score 1) 331

Here's the problem I have with this:

Program Expenses
(Percent of the charityâ(TM)s total expenses spent on the programs and services it delivers)

This doesn't say exactly what those expenses ARE, because it could well be that they spend 95% of their "program expenses" on admin, salaries, bribes, and various other overhead, and that only 5% actually trickles down to the nominal recipients.

This is something I became aware of while perusing tax info from a particular class of charities -- where "administrative expenses" is typically charity-speak for "owner's salary"... explaining why "administrative expenses" tends to be an upper-five to lower-six figure number even for charities that are basically one-man bands.

Comment Re:Different election this time? (Score 1) 331

Someone pointed out that if Trump actually had a proper collection of skeletons, they'd already be on parade... if one jock-talk tape is the best they can do (at least, with documentation so the tale can't be promptly refuted by genuine witnesses) there probably isn't anything all that terrible waiting to be unearthed.

Comment Re: Can't read my posts either. Strange obsession (Score 1) 549

Nope, just tired of crappy ad hominem arguments that don't actually say anything beyond "we're right, you're wrong". Give me reasons and rationale and hard data (and I don't mean conveniently doctored data, like Mary Koss did), not just BS, and I'll listen. I might even change my mind, like I did on basic income -- once hard facts got laid out, not just leftist whining about their mythical notions of equality.

But hey, keep that bag over your head and complain how everyone else is in the dark.

Slashdot Top Deals

Someday somebody has got to decide whether the typewriter is the machine, or the person who operates it.