Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:laptops on the conveyor belt (Score 1) 76

I don't trust the carry on luggage with the laptop. My backpack has a "checkpoint friendly" part, where I can just bisect the bag and have the laptop available for their X-Ray devices. But you should absolutely put the little tray with your shoes in front (along with any belt), followed by anything else you can justify putting into a little tray, followed by your actual carry-on item. This way, you'll at least get your shoes while the decide to screen the living shit out of your carry on bags.

The whole thing is fucking awful. The fact that they will sell you a special line where they check almost nothing proves that it's a scam.

Comment Don't leave your guns at home, check them. (Score 1) 76

I don't know why they would tell you to leave your guns at home. If you do that, you won't have any guns where you are flying to. You should instead check them in baggage.

They even have a webpage for it:

Note if you have an expensive and/or fragile scope, you can carry that through the checkpoints as per normal.

Comment Re:Somebody mod this story down (Score 1) 221

> As I pointed out in my original post, Russian trolls will mod me down to try and prevent people from seeing the truth of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

I'm personally totally convinced that this happened, because I saw it happen in real time as did you. Even slashdot wasn't immune to this, IMO, and I absolutely saw it on other forums.
This is *totally separate* from the "Russians helped Trump" claims, however. Trump has huge organic support among his base, as witnessed in the primaries. I did see a bunch of Russians (who identified as such), saying that they really liked Trump. Trump enjoys huge popularity in Russia (and a lot less popularity in some other parts of Europe). So finding openly Russian posters endorsing Trump or shitting on Clinton was no more surprising than finding a British poster who endorses Hillary and shits on Trump. The idea that the Russian government is successfully feeding disinfo to constitutional conservatives is left wing conspiracy tier claims.

> It's quite funny to watch them first deny the facts, then attempt to deflect, then finally come full circle and deny their own words.

I'm glad you're amusing yourself, but the simple fact is that you can't meaningfully fight shills by playing by the rules. I respect that you try, however. Here's a standard exchange, going exactly as you stated:

(post on a topic)
(shill comes in with shill points)
(you argue with shill)
(shill flatly denies stuff)
(you link to sources)
(shill deflects implications)
(you demonstrate the deflections are invalid)
(shill flatly denies their above words)
(you demonstrate their own logical incoherence, prove that they are a liar, and move on)

And here's how every forum on the internet displays it to all users except the ones who have way too much time on their hands:
(post on a topic)
(shill comes in with shill points)
(you argue with shill)
(shill flatly denies stuff)

The point I'm making is that shills make use of posting tricks that use the mechanisms of the discussion boards against the other users. This means that by the time you get down into the weeds, the shill has succeeded. You aren't going to convince a shill, especially not a foreign government shill. Your entire goal should be to succinctly argue enough that anyone who cares will not accept the shill arguments uncritically, and maybe even do research themselves. Shills are fighting for mindspace of readers, they'll yield any battle that doesn't gain them ground in that one area, because they aren't fighting that battle.

Comment Re:Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose (Score 1) 221

It's possible the Libertarians would have done better with someone else, but given that Johnson has done the best of any Libertarian in the history of the party (twice- his 2012 run was a record for the party too), it seems a bit of an odd argument. I know, I know, the main party candidates are the big drivers here, but performing well in 2012 is still a legit mark in his favor regardless.

Comment Re:Somebody mod this story down (Score 4, Insightful) 221

That there are Russian shills on the internet is an undeniable fact. That they are on forums steering the conversation when they can is almost assuredly the case- I've seen such cases myself. But that doesn't mean that every piece of right wing journalism is magically fake news nor Russian spies.

Comment Re:Russians didn't cause Hillary! to lose (Score 4, Interesting) 221

Well, Americans didn't stay home.

CNN right now says Trump has 62,693,993 votes in the popular vote. That's more than any Republican has ever gotten in the popular vote (closest was George Bush in 2004, with 62,040,610). Obviously, these numbers are influenced by there being more Americans than before, and Trump is at 46.3% of the popular vote, while GWB's reelection was 51%. It is off by a few percent only, however- whatever the magnitude of Trump's thing, it still only affected a couple voters out of every hundred.

For comparison, Obama got 69.5 million votes in 2008, and 66 million in 2012, to Clinton's 65 million.

I feel that the solid performance of the 3rd parties this time around is the big thing not being talked about. Gary Johnson in 2012 set yellow team records for a Libertarian with 1.3 million votes. In 2016, he got over 4 million votes- Wikipedia says it is "more votes than the previous eight Libertarian presidential tickets combined", and was over 3%. The Greens got .36% of the vote in 2012, and 1% of the popular vote.

The reason that the 3rd party tickets are interesting is that *both are the same candidates as in 2012*. It is implausible that Johnson and Stein quadrupled and tripled in popularity- it is much more likely that many voters who consider themselves leaning towards the libertarians or the greens, but who usually vote for republicans or democrats, instead did not, driven away by the candidates.

America didn't seem to stay home, is my point- they definitely chose third party options a lot more than normal, though.

Comment Re:Examples? (Score 5, Informative) 221

I mean, it's bullshit for the reason the summary said- they basically accused Ron Paul of being a KGB agent. If the Russian propaganda machine is secretly vigorously promoting conservative libertarians, free market libertarians, and every right wing blog they can name, give me a fucking break. Just like when they made a list of "fake news" sites that somehow included every single right wing website except fox news, and it was some liberal professor who made the list. Just because the right has loonies doesn't mean that the left loonies should be dug up and given a grand platform to blather.

Comment Re:Libre (Score 2) 257

The fact that Debian doesn't meet Stallman's standards is a problem with Stallman's standards. Trisquel gives you what you are looking for, but when you can't use your hooble-dooble because the company is a bunch of apes that never made a FOSS driver, you'll be angry at the company, and a little angry that you didn't bend for just that one thing. You can run Debian as a fully free software Linux build, why is that not good enough? Because you could, if you wanted, not do that?

Their rationale on not including some of these- which dot a bunch of "i"s and cross a bunch of "t"s- is just very rms:

Basically, if there's a clearly labelled option to use nonfree / proprietary dudes, that disqualifies you. I have never met a single soul in person who finds that distinguishment useful, and outside of the FSF I suspect it is a rare opinion indeed, even among folks who jump through the requisite hoops to run only free software.

Comment Re:Init alternatives (Score 0) 257

This makes a lot of assumptions. You sound like you are talking about a pizzabox server in a rack. My home box gets rebooted whenever I update, which is every couple months, and it also gets rebooted if it gets dicked up, which is about every few weeks, and almost always related to some game that hates my video driver. It also gets turned off if I go on travel. Sometimes I turn it off to save power (especially during the summer, when running a heater in an air conditioned home just bothers me). And what if I lose power? I have a UPS, but I lose all home power at least four times a year, which is shitty, but hey, what are you gonna do? Replace the one bad transformer? I'm sure there's a few more years in it, and where would the repair dudes hang out if not for their seasonal meet-and-greet green box?

I think boot time is worth being concerned about on a main rig. It's definitely worth being concerned about on a laptop. Maybe you have the one laptop that always and without fail restores from hibernate, but I'd call coming up from hibernate about a 90% success rate, and sometimes you need that to happen faster. Plus, since this is a conversation about Linux, it should be pointed out that Linux's support for hibernate and suspend is all over the fucking map still- if you have a mainstream distro on a top tier lappie, sure, it's perfect. If you have something, uh, vintage, maybe not.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 504

> Senate traditionalists won't abolish the filibuster.

They *probably* will. In 2013, all Republicans (and some Democrats) voted against a "nuclear option" on every executive appointed BESIDES the supreme court. At the time, Republicans claimed that they would change it to Supreme Court nominees the next time they had a full-red setup, as a manner of threatening the Democrats. The Democrats ignored it, lusting after a chance to pack federal circuit courts with liberals, and lo, it was done.

So while they MIGHT not abolish what is left of the filibuster- just supreme court picks- they probably will. They threatened to do so should the Democrats override Senate tradition, and the Democrats did exactly that, and then spammed through whatever they wanted until they lost the Senate.

> they will sorely miss the power to filibuster the Democrats

They already don't have that power, though, because the Democrats already gutted the filibuster. That's the problem- it gave them full justification and motive. Maybe they won't do it. But they probably will.

> It's been going on for nearly eight years.

Republican obstruction has been going on for two years by some definitions, six years by others. They certainly had no say at all during the first two years of Obama's presidency, when he had a full-blue congress that was uninterested in the minority party at all. The Republicans seemed to have seized on that as their casus belli, and mostly said so at the time. This is definitely a bad thing (and it could escalate to ruinous), but its clear that the Republicans generally blame the Democrats for this escalation. The Democrats, of course, blame the Republicans. It isn't business as usual, and it's pretty dangerous.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." -- Mark Twain