Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Aaaw... come on. At least have the balls... (Score 1) 692 say "Vote Republican."
I.e. Vote Trump.

Political groups Majority (247)
Republican (247)

Minority (187)
Democratic (186)

And that's AFTER Republicans have done all they can to stall the Supreme Court nomination by Obama.
Why must Republicans always resort to stealing? Isn't lying (Hey! They're politicians. They have to lie to SOMEONE.) enough?

Comment You might wanna look up Citizens United... (Score 1) 692

tl:dr - They and the Reagan-Bush-Bush judges made it all perfectly legal.

Only "issue" at play is that Democrats are playing by Republican rules.
I.e. Acting like Republicans while talking like Democrats. Which they can't help - Republicans changed the rules of the game.
THAT is their problem, when facing their voters. But it is not illegal. Just immoral. You know... designed by Republicans.

Comment BZZZT! NOPE! Wanna try that one again? (Score 1) 692

All told, a single donor can give more than $700,000 for the election.
That's serious money, according to campaign finance lawyer Brett Kappel.
He said, "It also shows you where campaign finance law has gone. We're now back in the era of soft money."

"Soft money" was the term for unregulated contributions to the party committees in the 1980s and '90s.
The soft money system led to corruption cases in both major parties, and Congress barred party committees from raising it in 2002.

But eight years later, the Supreme Court gave unregulated money a new path with Citizens United and other court decisions.
In a 2014 ruling in the case McCutcheon v. FEC, the Supreme Court elevated the importance of joint fundraising committees between campaigns and parties, such as the Hillary Victory Fund.

Campaign finance law had previously set an overarching limit on how much one person could give to federal candidates and the major parties â" combined â" in one election cycle.
In McCutcheon, the Supreme Court said that limit was unconstitutional.
As in other rulings, the court said removing the limit didn't raise questions of corruption.

You don't like that? Well, you can hop on your time machine and go and shoot down people responsible - two Bushes and a Reagan.
They appointed the guys who made it legal. Obama and Clinton appointed judges were against it.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down an overall cap on the amount that large campaign donors can give to parties and candidates in a two-year election cycle.

Chief Justice John Roberts led the opinion and was joined by justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.
A separate but concurring opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

Comment What crimes? (Score 1) 692

These crimes were exposed by someone we don't like so much.

Best that the Hillary Haters (which is a family tradition in some cultures) could come up with is claiming violation of 18 U.S. Code  599.

Being the kind of people who don't need and don't care for actual facts as long as they think they fit their agenda - they are even quoting the wrong section.
18 U.S. Code  599 refers to CANDIDATES - not candidate's staff or candidate's party's staff.

But as they have such a hardon for Hillary, they are desperate to make something supposedly done by DNC automagically mean that it's an excuse for execution of Hillary.

What they SHOULD be quoting is section 600 - 18 U.S. Code  600.

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Only problem is... at best, that would get them some people in the DNC that no one has ever heard of - not Hillary.

In reality, IT WOULD NOT GET THEM ANYONE cause it is NOT a crime - emails they are quoting prove so.
Key word is PROMISE. I.e. Give assurance of future events.
"IF you do this for me, I WILL do this for you."

Emails are AT BEST describing the exact opposite of that.
It's people ASKING FOR names of people to put on lists of potential nominees. And even that is not a certain nomination. They are LITERALLY asking for names of people who would they like to be CONSIDERED.

Any folks who you'd like to be considered to be on the board of (for example) USPS, NEA, NEH. Basically anyone who has a niche interest and might like to serve on the board of one of these orgs.

Not making promises. Looking for loyalists who have ALREADY pledged their loyalty.
"You DID stuff for me, MAYBE you'll be considered."
That's NOT a promise. At best it is compensation for past service... maybe...
And you can't legislate against that cause then the government would have to fire every government employee and dismantle every government program with every election.
Cause the fact that the candidate would be signing budgets, which pay for paychecks, of cops and judges, who have maintained law and order during candidate's past life - could be construed as compensation for past services.

And in the end, they are not even asking people directly - THEY ARE ASKING FOR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OTHER PEOPLE!
They are asking for references for possible consideration.
So not only is it not a promise - it is not even a promise of a promise.
Casinos and lotteries make more direct promises than that.

But hey... screw that. Did you know that Hillary has a "Muslim Brotherhood princess" on her staff? True story bro.

Comment Cows are not strictly herbivorous. (Score 1) 258

They'll munch on bones of other animals when they find them.
They need all the calcium they can get as they are pumping it out through milk.

Just like the way they'll go for some chicken nuggets if they are low on other nutrients such as phosphorus or iron.
Nature is red in tooth and claw.

Comment Here you go... (Score 3, Informative) 328


The reasons stated for banning are, in this order: gambling, evolution, use of religious symbols of other religions ("six-pointed star of Judaism", "the cross", "angles and triangles - Masonry", "Symbols of the Shinto creed").

So... the "Zionism-promoting" thing is invention and interpretation of Times of Israel, as neither Zionism nor Israel are mentioned in the fatwa.
Other than that, the entire thing reads like any other religious edict of any religion - detached from reality, one leg in conspiracy theories and religious paranoia, other leg firmly cemented in mental issues.

Comment They've joined NATO in 1952... (Score 1) 153

Since then they had a coup about once a decade.

1960 one ended with hanging of Prime Minister, Minister of Labor and Finance and Minister of Foreign Affairs.
1980 one ended with 50 (official) executions and half a million arrests.

Comment Re:#BlackLivesMatter (Score 1) 983

And modern liberals aren't authoritarian? To the point of legislating soft drink cup size? Or the shape of cucumbers in EU?

You are confusing standards with prohibition.

A law stating the size and system of measurement of cups used to serve beverages in restaurants is there so the owner/server can't fuck over customers with glasses that look big but actually contain less beverage than what the customer paid for.
Not really that important for Pepsi (until your kid complains to you asking you to fix the "injustice") but can be important when a bar full of sports fans starts complaining about half of their beer glasses being filled with only foam.

A law stating the size of cucumbers doesn't mean cucumbers of different size will be banned or thrown away - just that AFTER GOING OVER A SORTING GRATE the cucumbers of certain size will be used for pickling in jars of certain sizes while others will be sold fresh.
That's how you get your canape sizes pickles cheaply - without having to buy several jars of pickles and then handpicking the pickled pickles of puny proportions.

Both kinds of laws are there cause customers complain about being tricked by the salesmen or salesmen complaining about customers being picky - both sides demanding that the government officials do something about that.
Thus, the laws regulating standards.

Comment Yes, it is an issue. But not about robots. (Score 1) 983

Or drones.

It's an issue that now and forever every guy with a gun, who is surrounded by police or simply holed up somewhere and high on paranoia - is expecting to be exploded with bombs and perhaps robots.
And while this may or may not trigger a series of shootings of drones and toys - it most certainly will create a situation where now the perps expect that they are not getting arrested.
That it is a fight to the death. No negotiation. No deescalation. Cops will kill you so you must kill cops.

It's actually a bit ironic that Detroit depicted in RoboCop was actually mostly Dallas.

Comment You assume wrong. (Score 1) 202

The heating element i assume is to reduce temperature extreme to reduce the level of expansion and contraction that can cause heavy damage.

This is not a project based on science or engineering.
This is a happy-flower-candy-unicorn project to save the deer and make everything happy-skippy-nice.
They have LED lights in it in order to light up the fucking animals crossing the road.

Solar Roadways® panels have an integrated heating component. The heating system in Solar Roadways® maintains a temperature above freezing. This keeps the road free of snow and ice. Since more than 70% of the U.S. population lives in snowy regions, this system is crucial to maintain safe road conditions. The implementation of a heated roadway system would also save a significant amount of time in snow removal. The electricity required to run the heating elements will vary from location to location. Every effort has been made to make sure only the minimal amount of energy is expended in keeping snow and ice from accumulating.

For homeowners SR can provide safe and efficient walking and parking surfaces. Shoveling and plowing are time consuming and shoveling can result in injuries. Many homeowners bear the expense of purchasing snow removal equipment or pay others to plow for them. Heated driveways, walkways, paths, patios, etc. would provide safer walking and driving surfaces that require less maintenance. With the implementation of SR, homeowners would be saved from winter inconveniences.


Each panel's heating element and LEDs are driven by the grid/storage system, not by the solar cells directly. The solar cells place the harvested energy on the grid/storage system. The systems are independent of one another. This is important because the heaters/LEDs must work at night when the solar cells are incapable of producing power.

I.e. They will be pumping in coal-powered heat and light in order to light up the deer and melt the snow and ice.
Pouring gasoline on the road and setting it on fire would probably be more ecological and "green".

Comment Re:Worse than senseless (Score 1) 202

Neither the installation nor the maintenance and operation costs for this particular "invention" are cheaper or simpler than the traditional road solutions.
They are nowhere close actually.

They require concrete foundations, with crawlspace for all the cabling.
They have built-in lights to light up the animals crossing the road.
They have built-in heaters to melt the snow and ice.

It's a product of hippy thinking, not engineering a solution to a problem - which would be roadside solar panels.
Fear for the deer? Put some lights on the pole too.
And whatever you do - don't use heat to melt the snow.
You'd be producing global warming by pumping in fossil-fuel-derived heat during the months when there is nearly no sunlight and using it to create water vapor.
Mechanical cleaning moves the snow onto dirt - where it slowly melts and is absorbed by said dirt. NOT evaporated directly into the air.

Comment Since you are a troll - you're whole life is fail. (Score 1) 202

Address your lack of units to the "creators" of said "solar roadways".
All the numbers are quoted directly from their site. So they refer "per hexagon".

But who cares - cause their "invention" simply doesn't provide the power needed to melt the snow.
Not even their updated "48 W" version, which still doesn't come close to the power they had to pump into the heaters to melt the snow.
Which is a thing their FAQ no longer mentions. It just talks about how awesome it is to melt snow - by the power drawn from the grid.
I.e. By burning coal to melt ice and snow and heat up air.

They are using the same exact language as back when they listed the fact that they had to use 72 W to melt the snow off of a 36 W producing hexagon - except there's no more talk about any actual numbers.
Measured or projected.
But they still say "the panels will not be heated to the extent of being warm to the touch" - just like back when "72-watts... was an overkill and made the surface warm to the touch on most winter days".
I guess that after their "experiment with different voltages at different temperatures" they came up with the solution.

Which is clearly NOT TO MENTION how much power the whole thing would draw from the grid in order to melt the snow and ice.

Comment Please, stop. (Score 1) 202

We already had this discussion.

If you want a long (but informative) rant about why that is utter nonsense - here's mine.
In short - the best they are pulling off today is 36 W, they hope to someday, with the help of magic elves and such, make 52 W.
Only tests they made of using their panels for testing required 72 W.
I'm guessing that's why they ended up testing it on a road in Missouri and not in... say... Wisconsin.

Also, as any melting would be done in the winter, with shorter days and continuous snowfall - clearing the roads with heating would mean "pumping in" electricity from other sources. I.e. Burning coal.
Which would not only create tons of CO2 - it would literally pump water vapor and heat into atmosphere.

As far as "save the planet" ideas go it's somewhere between switching everyone from using electricity to using candles and exploding a bunch of nukes around poles in order to blast more ice into the water to cool the oceans.

Slashdot Top Deals

Uncertain fortune is thoroughly mastered by the equity of the calculation. - Blaise Pascal