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: planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 1) 68

I replied using the same words you used with me. If that isn't civil, then deal with it.

OK, here's me dealing with it. The actual word "boo hoo" has very little to do with your lack of civility, and it doesn't indicate a lack of civility on my part. When you said "boo hoo," you implied that my complaint against you was based on the notion that I support efforts to foster faithless electors because I am vigorously invested (as you are) in which candidate becomes president. My perspective has nothing to do with which candidate will become president, and it shows a lack of civility that you would presume it does while attacking me. I'd be happy to help you understand other parts of your comments where you showed a lack of civility, if you want, but I'm sure you'd rather just continue behaving like a buffoon. I mean, seriously.. Ripping my 'advocating respect' line out of context like that for a sarcastic quip? Grow up kid.

If they can't keep their pledge to vote for their candidate, then they shouldn't be electors in the first place.

That's not what our founding fathers had in mind when they designed this system. They intended for electors to lose faith in their pledge if the circumstances called for it. If you can't accept that, and you don't have the gumption to suggest the system should be amended, then you never belonged in this country in the first place.

The process includes, in 26 states as I understand it, LAWS that require the electors to vote for the person that got them to the party. Taking these laws to court now is trying to subvert the process that was in place on election day and that was agreed to BY THE ELECTORS THEMSELVES.

Those laws were knowingly enacted in direct contradiction with our constitution. If you hadn't already demonstrated your meddle when you dragged this discussion into the gutter with your political bent, then we could have a meaningful conversation about federalism and states' rights. Suffice to say those electors have an obligation to honor the laws written into our constitution just like those 26 states had an obligation to advocate for a change to the electoral system rather than writing laws that contradict with it.

Tell me that changing the law after the fact isn't subverting the process.

Changing a law and challenging the constitutionality of a law are not the same thing. Since you've already demonstrated that you're incapable of understanding a simple fact like this, I really don't have much hope for continuing this conversation with you.

I'm so glad that you took the civil discourse pathway here. And if you can't detect it, that was sarcasm.

It's ironic that you joke about me being able to detect sarcasm while simultaneously failing to recognize that any hope of civil discourse went out the window when you flatly denied your obvious lack of civility after treating me like the political enemy you'd identified by checking the other guy's post history.

Comment Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 1) 68

Sorry... That wasn't civil and this reply isn't either- Boohoo, myself? Come on, now... Believe what you want, but genuinely and truly, I'm not invested in the results of their efforts one way or the other. Each candidate is bad for the country in their own way, and in my view, it's next to impossible to determine which one is more dangerous at this point. At the same time, some aspects of the electoral college are bad for the country and an alternative or a fix is badly needed. I don't care.

I love watching stuff like this play out, and I'm only advocating respect (including possible constructive criticism) of the process our founding fathers created. You're demonstrating willful ignorance of this process to suit your political agenda. The pledge is not meaningless. The pledge exists so that electors are forced to weigh their options carefully and avoid rash decisions. The fact of the matter is that the electoral college was intentionally designed so that "faithless electors" could influence the outcome of a presidential election. They and those appealing to them are not subverting the process. They are embracing it. You're the one spinning a yarn and spreading misinformation that runs contrary to the laws of our nation. This type of garbage subverts the integrity of our current election and corrupts the way citizens who fall victim to your lies might perceive future elections.

Comment Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 1) 68

First, look who's jumping down throats... Please keep it civil. Second just the facts my friend... The electoral college was designed to allow electors the freedom to cast votes contrary to the pledge you've mentioned. THAT is the process. Folks trying to influence THAT process in the ways you've described happen to be exercising their constitutionally protected rights. The only thing being subverted is the typical order of electoral business. That typical order of business is not a process that's protected by our laws. It's just what you're used to. So, in truth, the only thing that's being subverted is your desire to follow the typical order of business. Boohoo... If you must complain, I recommend you direct your complaints at the actual process rather than leveling unfounded criticism towards the law abiding citizens who wish to make use of the intended flexibility of its design.

Comment Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 2) 68

Why would you characterize what he described as 'subverting' the process? The rules of the process were designed to allow for those scenarios. Therefore, they are following the process- not subverting it. Interestingly, the states that have introduced penalties for electors who choose to vote their conscience are the ones who are trying to subvert the process.

Comment Re:Fitbit is next (Score 4, Funny) 181

Who on their right mind is going to spend hundreds of dollars for some minor functionality?

Back in the 1980s, I remember thinking "If only there was a way to have my girlfriend (at the time) send me her pulse so I could feel her love on my own wrist in real-time. Of course the technology wasn't there, and wouldn't be for some time, so I had to settle for her bloody heart in a jar and 25 years in a psychiatric hospital.

Comment Re:Yeah (Score 1) 72

Yep. I have a friend who worked for a now-defunct ad placement firm. They hired people specifically for the purpose of figuring out ways around ad blockers. Of course that was dumb, because for people who are determined not to be tracked and force-fed ads, that simply makes them more determined to find ways to block things.

Comment Re:There are Ads on YouTube? (Score 1) 72

I recently went to renew my /. subscription because it has been some time since I last had. They are no longer offering subscriptions, not sure if it's temporary or not. One of the nice things with it was the option to turn off ads. I still run uMatrix and uBlock Origin on the site but still wanted to support them.

So it seems like they may be going straight for an ad & tracker supported model.

Comment Because they are different (Score 1) 772

Incorrect news : an error was made during the reporting, but usually that error is due because of the speed the reporting was (e.g. reporting about one of more gunman activities on campus having fired shots), or because the reporter simply made an error.
Hoax new on the other hand, or what they call fake news, is made solely with the intention to lie, misrepresent. They are not a recent invention, mind you, you could probably find some of that as far as the invention of paper. But they took really foothold in the last 20 years, it isn't only with 2016 that it became apparent. But it became a real problem in the last year.
See a democracy is supported by voter being informed. An informed voter then take a decision to chose a politician based on that information. The problem is, when those voter are basing their information on what is mostly hoax.... Then democracy dies a little. It does not matter if the mis information is left, right, trump, hilary, Merkel, pizzagate or about santa's elf. If voter base their vote on that....

Comment Re:More advertising data (Score 1) 89

Linking who you share your location with their habits. Alice went to McDonalds. Bob went to Burger King. Both like fast food, show Bob ads for McDonalds.

Very elementary example, but they are basically asking the users to confirm that when Alice and Bob are in the same (or a similar) place, it is not a coincidence.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ever notice that even the busiest people are never too busy to tell you just how busy they are?