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 Re: Obama has no right to do this (Score 1) 478

I don't disagree that this is how "everyone refers to it" or that it's a convenient shorthand to use for purposes of conversation. That doesn't change the fact that it's not an accurate description of what is actually taking place, hence my statement "the confusion most people seem to have."

Comment Re:plenty of ways to waste your money. (Score 1) 53

I'll grant you premature retirement is not a good thing (though it can be, if the buyout is attractive enough) and changes the equation. That said, I stand behind my point. If the knowledge in your head doesn't exist elsewhere, you can make decent extra income in retirement. If you were FORCED out of that job by a stupid company despite having irreplaceable knowledge, you can charge them an asshole tax.

One of our technical sales guys is retiring next year. He already has multiple contracts lined up for his consultancy (with us and some of our customers). We'd be happier if he wasn't leaving at all, but he has city miles on him and old age is a bitch.

Comment Re:plenty of ways to waste your money. (Score 1) 53

In a lot of industries, retired people are brought back for niche knowledge, and get double the rate they made as an employee.

Let's do some quick math, shall we?

2x former salary rate/hour - 90% former hours - medical/dental benefits + Obamacare = less than what you made before.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up corporate abuse.

You're being disingenuous here. The reality is that retirees don't want a 40-60 hour work week--they're fucking retired. They don't mind (in fact, many really enjoy) getting paid a multiple of their former hourly rate to consult on projects for a few hours a week or month. If you work in the right industry / for the right company, it's even part of your retirement planning (that you'll have x additional income due to the 500 hours a year you plan to invoice your previous employer / their customers).

People in this role aren't burger flippers. They're people with valuable domain knowledge that hasn't been picked up by their replacement. Generally speaking, i's win-win for everyone except people like you that are bitching about the man keeping them down.

Comment Re:#1TermDonald (Score 1) 574

Though you appear to decry use of derogatory nicknames, it is among the rhetorical tactics of the apparent President-elect.* During his campaign, he used such a nickname for each of his opponents: Low-Energy Jeb, Little Marco, 1 for 38 Kasich, Lyin' Ted (which some of his supporters attempted to reclaim as Lion Ted), and Crooked Hillary. Now watch leftards turn the practice back at "One-Term Donald".

* Faithless electors could yet keep Mr. Trump from officially becoming President-elect on December 19. There are eight so far.

There is actually one, not eight. The seven people who already were not going to vote for Trump (because they're pledged to Hillary) don't count.

That said, "One Term Donald" sounds like a great nickname. Here's hoping.

Comment Re:I do not! (Score 4, Insightful) 574

And here again we see the goddamn problem. You're presented with a fair argument, outlined in easy-to-reply-to numbers, and your only response is "bu-bu-but Hillary lol."

That's a human thing, not a conservative thing. Ask almost anybody about the horrible thing that $PERSON_THEY_SUPPORT did, and the answer is almost ALWAYS going to be, "but $OTHER_GUY did the same thing!" Ask them about something they personally did, and they'll complain about something you did. It comes down to education (or lack thereof) and emotion--most people cannot think critically anymore, have no desire to do so, and allow their emotions to rule their arguments.

Conservatives used to make serious arguments, sometimes reasonable, sometimes specious. Not anymore. What the fuck happened?

Again, same problem on both sides. The arguments on the conservative side are largely devolving into conspiracy theories, while the arguments on the liberal side these days largely consist of repeating the words "you racist, misogynist, fuck!" over and over.

I'm not being entirely fair--there are quite a few people on both sides that still make really good arguments. But their numbers are relatively small, and their signal is being lost in the sea of noise. The conservative thinkers appear to be letting this go because their side is (currently) "winning." The liberal thinkers appear to be letting this go because if they open their mouths, they'll be ripped apart by the shrieking hordes of SJWs.

Comment Re:and tomorrow (Score 4, Insightful) 256

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) 75

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) 392

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay