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:money wasted. (Score 1) 67

Intel doesn't understand that we don't need them.

Yes, they understand that. That is why Slashdot announced that Intel was killing Atom chips just six months ago.

However, now they have a new Atom chip. What is going on? Did they kill Atom, or didn't they? Me confused.

Comment Re:Clever design (Score 1) 269

Possibly true, but better graphics and more horsepower does not automatically makes for better games. It is all about FUN, first and foremost. A bad game with great graphics and more particle effects is still a bad game.

Two of my favorite games are still Fallout 1 and 2. They play great on a 100 MHz Pentium. Add a patch to support wide-screen monitors, and the games are still every bit as fun today as it was 18 years ago. The graphics still look pretty good, and the story-telling and gameplay have not aged at all.

Comment Re:Clever design (Score 4, Interesting) 269

I am actually less concerned about horsepower than I am with ownership. To me, current generation graphics are good enough. Would Mario be any more fun if you can see each and every pore and pimple on his face?

My last Nintendo console was a Wii, which suffered a mishap. I lost all of my purchased games because Nintendo tied downloadables to the console instead of the account. I honestly gave the Wii U a pass just because of this.

If I buy a Switch and some downloadable games for it, and it is destroyed, will I have to re-purchase all of those games, or can they be transferred to a new console easily? I really want the sane standards set by Steam. I am not a favor of DRM, but since some publishers insist on it, at least Steam does it in a manner that is least obtrusive.

Comment Re:We're going to nuke Russia (Score 1) 396

I find it funny how you get focused on the specifics about being under oath.

Under Title 18, section 1001 if the United States Code, it is illegal to make a material misstatement to any member of the federal government. Still, we are getting off topic. My statement still stands: she belongs in jail.

Here is a quote from the director of the FBI:

Clinton was wrong when she said she never sent or received classified information over the server. "Our investigation found ... 110 [emails with then-classified information] that she either received or sent,


In fact, he said, three emails on Clinton's server had a paragraph "summariz[ing] something" and included a C in parentheses at the beginning of it, indicating the paragraph contained information "classified at the confidential level, which is the lowest level of classification."

Hillary handled 110 e-mails that had classified info, and three of them were clearly marked. However, as the Secretary of State, you would think that she would be clearly aware of what makes something classified, since she was the BOSS! What higher authority is there as to whether something should be classified other than the president? The buck has to stop somewhere! So, the BOSS handled three classified marked classified e-mails, and was clueless that the other 107 were classified, which is A BIG PART OF HER DAMN JOB!

If you or I has been that careless just 3 e-mails, WE WOULD BE IN JAIL. People HAVE been jailed for far less. Here is an example:

Navy engineer sentenced for mishandling classified material: Bryan Nishimura of Folsom, California, pled guilty to the unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials during stints in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. Hereâ(TM)s the money quote from the AP â" âoeAn FBI search of Nishimuraâ(TM)s home turned up classified materials, but did not reveal evidence he intended to distribute them.â The exact words used to clear Hillary of her misdeeds. Instead, Nishimura was sentenced to two years probation, fined $7,500, and had to surrender his security clearance. Meanwhile, Clinton will be able to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

So, yeah, Hillary got away clean with greater misdeeds than mere mortals get a felony for.

I should note that Hillary claimed to have NO IDEA what the "C" mark meant. Isn't that "classified 101"? That is like having a doctor have no idea about the difference between an artery and a vein. She has been PROVEN INCOMPETENT, and yet people like YOU still support her.

I happen to like you calling me names. Instead of actually disproving me, you just insult me. Like I said, you might be able to convince me that you are right if you use better insults. I am sure that you can look up better names to call me -- that will prove that I am wrong.

Comment Re:We're going to nuke Russia (Score 1) 396

Why wasn't Hillary put under oath? Simple: under orders from high above. It was obviously KNOWN that Hillary could NOT be under oath without going to prison, otherwise why would the FBI specifically make sure that she was NOT sworn in? Give me ONE GOOD REASON! If she is under oath, she will either go to jail for mishandling classified documents, or she will go to jail for perjury.

And you call me a "fuckwit" when people like YOU are perfectly OK with her breaking the law and getting away with it.

I still stand by my statement: if an average person (one who is not "too big to jail") had done the exact same thing, they would have been under oath, and gone to prison. Period.

I am glad that Slashdot does not allow editing of comments, so that your post will be a record on your class and intelligence level for the entire world to see. You represent the typical level of logical thinking and respect of a typical Hillary supporter. Maybe you should buy a new dictionary of insults and swear words in order to improve your argument skills... You would be much more persuasive if you were to just insult me more.

Comment Re:Good for India (Score 1) 813

Basic human rights should be provided by the government that the person is a citizen of.

So, I deserve health care, as a US citizen. However, I cannot just show up in China and say that they owe me health care. If I appeared in Brazil and claimed that they owe me a hospital bed, I would be crazy.

It is also funny how some people think that it is HORRIBLE for the Russians to interfere in the elections by exposing the truth about what the Democrats have actually said and done, but would be perfectly OK if Russia were to smuggle in a million people just before the election, let them vote, and then cart them back to Russia.

Comment Re:Good for India (Score 1) 813

So, if you are discussing your family budget, and a criminal breaks into your house, then the criminal gets a say in the budget? He gets to pick a meal to have sometime in the next week? He gets to pick a movie the next time you guys go out to the movies as a family? If he needs a cavity filled, you get to pay for it? Wow, you sure are generous.

Comment Re:Good for India (Score 1) 813

We also throw people who enter illegally in prison and don't give them far less "free stuff" than people here legally.
Reply to This Share

Not quite. SOME are held and deported. Most are not.

Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez was released by the San Francisco Sheriff to walk free, despite being in this country illegally, having been deported multiple times, and despite many arrests involving drugs. Because he was released, Kathryn Steinle died.

Comment Re:Good for India (Score 1) 813

Sure, why not? They're paying taxes and affected by the policies as much as anyone.

Riiight. So, if you are in a public place and get into an argument with your spouse, everybody around has a right to chime in on the argument because they can hear it?

I should get a say as to who the next CEO of Apple is, just because I might own an Apple product or two? I should have just as much say as a person who owns stock?

They should NOT be affected by those policies, and should NOT be paying taxes because they SHOULD NOT BE HERE! What part is "ILLEGAL" is so hard for you to understand?

Some countries throw people in PRISON who enter illegally. We give them free stuff!

Comment Re:Good for India (Score 1) 813

rivers Licenses aren't some privilege, they are supposed to be a safety check verifying that a person can operate a vehicle without destroying lives and property willy nilly. By making them a citizenship check you effectively ensure that no illegal resident's driving skills and road safety knowledge will be tested prior to them taking to the road.

They should NOT be driving because they should NOT be in this country legally! They cannot destroy lives and property in the US if they are not actually here! I would think that this would qualify as "common sense" but I guess not.

This is like requiring courses for safe sex intended for rapists. Yes, if you are going to be raped, you are better off if the attacker uses a condom, but how much better to not be raped in the first place!

Slashdot Top Deals

"This generation may be the one that will face Armageddon." -- Ronald Reagan, "People" magazine, December 26, 1985