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:and tomorrow (Score 3, Insightful) 220

Yawn. It's not censorship

Yet another person who believes "censorship" means "first amendment violation." This is absolutely censorship, though it's "acceptable" because:

you're playing in their yard, and you are free to start a competitor if it seems like they overstep.

They're perfectly free to censor their content, it's their house.

And the first loon to cry censorship is an ignorant ass

I won't call you an ass, but you are the ignorant party here. That's not something to be proud of.

Comment Re:Android fans will just compile themselves...not (Score 1) 74

Apple supports their devices a heck of a lot longer than Android has done so far

Actually, there's no company called "Android" so that comment doesn't even make sense.

Substitute "all OEMs producing hardware running Android" and it's still true. We're about to move from being a 100% Android shop to a 100% IOS shop, and that's one of the main reasons.

The Android philosophy is 100% superior to Apple ("Whatever meets your needs" vs "Walled Garden") but the execution has been piss poor.

Comment Re:Pay attention. (Score 1) 153

Whether the issue comes before the court or not is moot--this isn't a judicial precedent, this is a rule as to how US courts behave. It's ambiguous whether or not Scalia was alive or not at the time this rule was codified--apparently, the Court transmits the rules to Congress "by May 1st" of the year they go into effect, and the rules can take effect no earlier than December 1st of that year. Since Scalia died in February, it's more likely than not this happened after his death.

Comment Re:Pay attention. (Score 1) 153

Except, couldn't Obama veto it?

It doesn't appear so. The article is poorly written and very short on detail, but this looks like a change to the federal rules of criminal procedure, which are controlled directly by the Supreme Court. Congress CAN challenge these rules (the fact that the court has the ability to make these rules at all is a power delegated to them by the congress) but it typically does not. The president apparently has no say unless the congress acts.

Comment Re:Pay attention. (Score 1) 153

Yet the Democrats voted for it as well. That is how it passed. There is no "side" here.

Republicans have controlled congress since 2010.

The article is incredibly short on detail, but it appears this is the result of changes to the federal rules of criminal procedure, which are made directly by the Supreme Court pursuant to an act passed in 1934 granting them that power. The court, last I checked, was a Supremely partisan (pun intended) 4-4 mix, but they seem to agree on this. While it's true that the congress could have stopped those rules, I don't believe it's something that commonly happens, partisan rhetoric aside.

Comment Re:You imbecel (Score 1) 394

if everyone is doing it. Maybe it is not wrong.

That's a reasonable position, and quite true in many cases (our recent push for marijuana legalization is a good example). However, I'm not sure "grab them by the pussy" rises to that level of moral ambiguity. "Rape the girl while your state trooper bodyguard makes sure no one disturbs you" probably has issues, as well.

Comment Re:You imbecel (Score 2) 394

While they may be womanizers, they do so with consenting adults (alt-right lies about Clinton notwithstanding)

So the idea that Bill Clinton lost his license to practice law for obstructing justice and perjuring himself during a sexual harassment lawsuit is just a lie?

Not that I think that gives Trump a pass, FWIW. "Everybody is doing it" isn't a valid excuse for wrongdoing.

Comment Re:Umm what?! (Score 4, Insightful) 389

wow it's almost like depression or other types of mental illness can make people do things that aren't rational.

fucking dipshit.

Mental health issues are not the easiest thing to wrap your head around (especially if you're of a generation that was taught to rub dirt on it/walk it off in response to any injury, physical, mental, or emotional). If you haven't lived through it, or had a family member/close friend live through it, it's likely you just can't comprehend what some stranger is going through.

Just because someone is ignorant doesn't make them a dipshit (unless they're willfully so). Indeed, the AC was expressing empathy in general for the guy who tried to kill himself, rather than the disdain that you appear to be trying to respond to.

Comment Re:Popcorn time! (Score 1) 1321

At this point, I think it's our only hope to avoid a complete disaster.

I've gotta say, that if a massive Constitutional crisis doesn't rise to the level of "complete disaster" in your lexicon, I have no desire to see what would. Your scenario likely ends with arms being taken up by one side or another (followed by the others).

better yet a constitutional amendment to completely reform elections, mandating some type of range or approval voting process instead of First Past the Post.

We can't even get a plurality to agree on whether the sky is blue and you want a complete overhaul of the election process (which will require overwhelming approval--2/3rds of the congress, and 3/4ths of the states) before we can put this one behind us? This is just plain unrealistic.

Comment Re:If confirmed, does this make it realistic? (Score 1) 477

Umm, you realize we needed to make nuclear power plants *before* we could make the bombs, right? Granted they were designed specifically to enrich the natural fissiles into weapons-grade isotopes, but the reactors still came first.

The first time electricity was generated from a nuclear reactor was in 1951.

Slashdot Top Deals

Hard work never killed anybody, but why take a chance? -- Charlie McCarthy

Working...