Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: OMG that's a dodgy check (Score 1) 319

Here's the problem I have with this:

Program Expenses
(Percent of the charityâ(TM)s total expenses spent on the programs and services it delivers)

This doesn't say exactly what those expenses ARE, because it could well be that they spend 95% of their "program expenses" on admin, salaries, bribes, and various other overhead, and that only 5% actually trickles down to the nominal recipients.

This is something I became aware of while perusing tax info from a particular class of charities -- where "administrative expenses" is typically charity-speak for "owner's salary"... explaining why "administrative expenses" tends to be an upper-five to lower-six figure number even for charities that are basically one-man bands.

Comment Re:Different election this time? (Score 1) 319

Someone pointed out that if Trump actually had a proper collection of skeletons, they'd already be on parade... if one jock-talk tape is the best they can do (at least, with documentation so the tale can't be promptly refuted by genuine witnesses) there probably isn't anything all that terrible waiting to be unearthed.

Comment Re: Can't read my posts either. Strange obsession (Score 1) 537

Nope, just tired of crappy ad hominem arguments that don't actually say anything beyond "we're right, you're wrong". Give me reasons and rationale and hard data (and I don't mean conveniently doctored data, like Mary Koss did), not just BS, and I'll listen. I might even change my mind, like I did on basic income -- once hard facts got laid out, not just leftist whining about their mythical notions of equality.

But hey, keep that bag over your head and complain how everyone else is in the dark.

Comment Re:Account Recovery (Score 2) 88

Google no longer supports non-security questions for account recovery.

FTFY. Security questions are a joke. The answers are almost always easy for an attacker with a little bit of information about you to find, and a lot of the time the legitimate user can't remember them. Moreover, those two traits are strongly correlated: the harder it is for an attacker to find the answers, the more likely it is that the user won't be able to find them either.

Everyone should stop using them.

Comment Re:Reason (Score 1) 88

Google doesn't actually want your phone number for security. Google wants your phone number so that they can link the account in their database to other information that contains your phone number.

The number is to make account recovery possible in the event you've forgotten your password. The assumption is that attackers won't have access to your phone. That assumption is violated if your telco will transfer your number to the attacker's phone, of course.

If you prefer not to give your phone number to Google, don't. Just turn on two-factor auth using a non phone number-based auth method, either the Authenticator app or (better yet) a security key, or both. Then download and print out some backup 2FA codes and keep them somewhere safe. Google won't have your phone number and you won't be vulnerable to mistakes by dumb telco customer service reps.

Comment Re:Ignores the issue (Score 0) 106

I was surprised by Hillary getting full questions from CNN and topics from Fox before debates. I mean, I should know it's all just a sham. The media, the government, and the DNC are just a puppet show. Lies, brainwashing and propaganda. And democrats are totally fine with this because go blue team go.

Comment Re:Can't read my posts either. Strange obsession (Score 1) 537

I've noticed it's the other way around: When liberals say something crappy, we're supposed to take it in the spirit, not the letter. But when conservatives say the same crappy thing, we're supposed to take it as the letter, not the spirit. Oh, and when a liberal says something over the top, it's just hyperbole, but when a conservative says the same thing, it's literal.

If conservatives are insisting that their words be taken at face value, maybe it's because they're tired of liberals twisting 'em like this.

And the sexism/racism seems to be almost exclusively the province of the SJWs, and they're very public about it, but woe unto anyone else saying the same things.

Heads we win, Tails you lose.

Comment Re: Can't read my posts either. Strange obsession (Score 1) 537

I think you're being disingenuous. We not only don't want someone picked on the basis of their skin color, we don't want "liberal" justices, and we're not going to fall for this bait-and-switch.

And did a quick skim through his Wikipedia entry and nope, I don't want Merrick Garland either, I don't care if he's black, white, green, or plaid. Go find someone who judges per the Constitution, not from the regulatory POV.

Thomas Sowell:

Slashdot Top Deals

Optimization hinders evolution.