Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re: How many people really support her? (Score 1) 516

The "theoretical" aspect you deride was terribly important to potential Democratic party competitors when they were deciding whether or not to run.
Sure, Hillary beat an angry old communist in a two person primary. Woo hoo. Why was it only a two person primary? Because everyone else saw the writing on the wall.

Comment Matches my observations (Score 4, Funny) 186

Over the last couple of months, when I cut through one of the local parks on its bike trail, it's looked like the Night of the Living Dead: A bunch of zombies obliviously wandering around, staring down into their phones and cluelessly blocking the path.

Lately, the zombie outbreak seems to have abated somewhat, and the bike path isn't so much of an obstacle course.

Comment How many people really support her? (Score 4, Insightful) 516

Democrats... what the hell were you thinking when you supported Hillary?

The super delegate system, plus some rigging at the DNC, ensured there was never really a choice. Potential qualified competitors realized that Hillary had all the super delegates bought and paid for, so they didn't even bother. Bernie was dug up as an 'opponent', a sham primary was had- it got a little out of control- and in the end, the pre-determined outcome was obtained.
I think few people really support Hillary. They're just being obedient to the party.

Comment Re:UBI (Score 2) 365

Automating every last job is the correct path to a future where nobody has to work and we can just exist as humans, bettering ourselves.

Ideal society if you ask me. Working for masters is overrated.

I think we can look to children of the rich (and how they busy themselves when they don't have to look after their needs) to figure out where this road goes.

Comment Re:ALT+LEFT (Score 4, Insightful) 141

Because 'backspace to go back' is default behavior in a lot of programs, not just web browsers. Try it in File Explorer, for example.

Just like F1 being a nearly universal shortcut for 'help', F2 for 'rename', F3 or CTRL+F for 'search', and so on. I shouldn't have to relearn shortcuts for common behaviors in every program I want to use.

I thought that Alt+Left and Alt+Right *are* the standard shortcuts for going backward and forward in program histories. It's worked that way in every web browser I can remember using back to the 1990s, and it works that way in Windows Explorer. The backspace key doesn't even have an obvious corresponding "forward" key.

I wasn't aware that backspace was used to go back in history in any program. I always expect it to erase one character, or do nothing.

Comment Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal (Score 1) 133

I can't help but notice

Of course you can help it. You are actively looking for things, regardless of how small, allowing you to redirect blame to people you dislike. You are a partisan twit and part of the problem slowly but surely destroying our country from within. I do not care what "side" you are on (Democrat or Republican) but you are the real enemy.

You sound like a partisan democrat that doesn't have an actual response to the charge levied.

Comment Re:No internal structure? (Score 1) 189

By the time either a blimp or this thing deflates enough to make the engines flop around, there isn't going to be nearly enough lift of lift of any kind to keep it in the air.

But let's ignore that: You want to do this to a rigid airship.

Look at their history. Excluding the ones that burst into flames, many if not most of the major airships ever built ended up lost due to failure of their internal structures. They got shredded like pretzels with the slightest adverse aerodynamic forces. (Even the Hindenburg disaster probably initially involved the snapping of an internal bracing wire due to overzealous steering.)

If I had to ride in one of these white elephants, I'd still go with the inflatable version.

Comment Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal (Score 2) 133

"I feel like Iraq was stolen from us," said Mr Jabouri. "Bush and Blair are liars. They destroyed Iraq and took us back to zero, and took us back to the Middle Ages or earlier. If I was a criminal, I would kill them with my bare hands."

I can't help but notice that his statement comes a few years after Obama abandoned Iraq and consequently allowed ISIS to take over a third of the country.

Comment Re:That has to be the stupidest statement ever (Score 3, Insightful) 254

It's about as hot as it's been since humans arrived right now, and it's going to get much hotter. Not in evolutionary timescales, but within a couple of generations.

Evolution would probably work in the long run, but don't forget that sometimes evolution works by wiping out almost every member of a given species leaving only a tiny handful of "fit" survivors. That hardly seems like a better choice than just switching our primary energy sources ASAP.

Comment Re:Waste (Score 3, Insightful) 254

Many of the advanced battery technologies will have toxic chemicals. With huge production volumes, there's going to be a lot of poisonous waste materials. I suspect the environmental damage of new batteries is going to make the claimed damage of carbon seem like happy-fun-day.

No, the current buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere is a slow-motion apocalypse because it leverages the sun's vast energy output to push the entire planet away from the conditions that humans evolved to live within. No amount of run-of-the-mill poisonous chemicals could touch it. (Not that these chemicals would be released into the environment anyway. Utility storage batteries are very easy to track and regulate.)

Comment Re: Remember the Paris Hilton Sidekick... (Score 2) 82

Well, blame the Constitution, which was devised for a tiny nation of fewer than four million... That's including the 18% that were slaves. We're over 80x larger than we were in the 1790 census, but the House is only seven times as big. It's considerably less representative than the framers envisioned.

If the House had grown proportionally there'd be almost five thousand reps and more of them would answer their own correspondence. It'd be harder to gerrymander a decisive party advantage without winning the popular vote too. With modern IT it'd be perfectly manageable. You'd have to build a new Capitol though.

Such a large body has it's own problems. The Federalist papers, #58, discusses the topic, and the founding fathers actually did consider population growth and it's impact on representation. Summary here.

Comment Re:Thanks Media (Score 0) 330

If only someone could find a major News network that would obsessively look for dirt on the Clintons for 20+ years.

Plenty has been found on the Clintons; the problem is their supporters just don't care, and they always seem to have the right friends in charge of the relevant prosecutor's office.

Slashdot Top Deals

Fundamentally, there may be no basis for anything.

Working...