Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Journal Journal: What the? Where am I? 2

I don't know if someone accidentally nuked the mod-ban list or what, but I checked the front page today and I see I have moderator points.

A whole five of them, but moderator points no less.

I can say that based on my own comments indeed I have been commenting somewhat less often on here, so that may have made a difference. I guess if the front page here was more tech and less conservative FUD I would be likely to comment more often again...
User Journal

Journal Journal: Another TV season, another Transparent freak show. 3

What is portrayed on that show is not how it is for many of us in real life. Putting a man in a dress and having him portray a transsexual is not really going to capture it, except for the unpassable. But of course, that's what makes good TV. The truth is boring.

Of course, it IS more accurate in portraying the intersection between transsexuals and the LGB community - but only for those who believe that the LGBT community is also their community. If you're not a gay/lesbian/bi transsexual, it's an alien portrayal except for a few freaks.

But don't you dare say so - it goes against the "agenda."

One of my neighbors called me over to watch it, and she knew I was trans. At one point, "Maura" is walking into a restaurant for a date. I couldn't help but say "What the heck? The walk, the posture, that just screams man in a dress." She said that she was thinking the same thing. Come on, put at least a minimal effort into it. What I see there is parody. The hollywood/gay community's view of transsexuals is so full of shit compared to most straight transsexual's lives outside the "community." Assholes.

User Journal

Journal Journal: the glass is half-empty, evidently 4

Just saw this comment: "Tax cuts benefit those who pay more taxes - the rich."

What a warped (AKA Leftist) way of looking at things. Reducing the tax burden on someone is not an increased benefit, it's a reduced punishment.

If I'm one of the people chained up in a dungeon, being tortured every day, and this one chap is especially hated by the king and tortured more than the rest of us, if it's announced that due to the kingdom's gold running low, torture time will be reduced 25% across the board, I'm supposed to think of that as a *bad* thing, because it means one guy will see a greater drop in time on the rack (even tho he'll prolly *still* spend more total time there than I)?!?

User Journal

Journal Journal: WikiLeaks has Trump's tax returns! 25

Just joking. This is only a thought experiment. Had this been an actual emergency, you would have seen it on Twitter already. Notwithstanding...

What if WikiLeaks released the plausible, highly embarrassing, but possibly fake tax returns of Donald J Trump?

(1) Trump would still refuse to release his tax returns?

(2) Trump would release his tax returns and he would be helped by the resulting cloud of confusion.

(3) Trump would be hurt by the spotlight.

(4) Cowboy Neal already has the results of the audit!

Just a thought experiment, but remembering how they handled Dan Rather and how WikiLeaks works, I suspect Assange is already sitting on the Donald's tax returns...

User Journal

Journal Journal: make lil warriors outta them all

ArsLeftica has a FA on a study (filed under "science") where they conned teens into eating more veggies by doing an Adam Ruins Everything* type social justice ploy on them. Basically, don't eat stuff that tastes good, "because corporations!". Eat stuff that tastes like shit instead.

The promoted comment under TFA: "So they were manipulated by exploiting how they dislike being manipulated? Well played."

The commenter seems to have somewhere gotten the impression that Lefties are opposed to manipulation. Way to miss the operative distinction. Obviously it's not manipulation y'all have a problem with; it's only in who's doing it.

IOW, the Left is anti-evil (as you guys define "evil"), but pro-evil in promoting good over evil. Evil is fine as long as it promotes good. (So sayeth the Devil.)

*I presume; never watched it, but that's what I gather it is, from the ads, and given that anything new is going to have a strong Leftist bent nowadays.

User Journal

Journal Journal: nutrition news you can't use

So my dog had bashed my knee earlier this year, so I'd suspended our long walks hiking the hilly streets in my area. So I got fatter.

I hadn't been concerned with weight before, so when the battery died in my bathroom scale, I never got around to buying a 9-volt battery to replace it.

Well I finally did, 4 weeks ago. Stepped on the scale, and oh shit, 189.

I looked at a calendar, and there just so happened to be 19 weeks left in the year. So that was my goal.

After some poking around the intertubes, I read that cutting about 3500 calories a week is supposed to get you to lose about a pound a week.

I also found some stuff about something called "BMR" (different from "BMI"). You plug stuff in to a BMR clackulator, and it spits out an estimate of how many calories you'd need to eat to maintain your current body weight (at your current level of exertion lifestyle).

So I figured I was eating about 2200 cals a day, and since I might slow down as I lose, I thought I ought to shoot for 1.5 lbs a week, so I'm eating a 750 calorie deficit, or trying to come as close to 1450 cals a day.

So I'm counting calories, and my sis pointed me to a myfitnesspal web site, which is pretty primitive, looking like it was build circa the 1990's, but people have entered the nutrition info for tons of foods, so that's mainly why I'm using it.

So mum is making her delicious chicken and rice casserole tonight, and invited me over for dinner. I looked up the 411 on the other ingredients, but the package of chicken thighs is craptastically unhelpful.

It said something like:
Serving size: 4oz
Calories per serving: 205 (or whatever)

Then the punchline:
Servings per container: Varied.

WTF?!? Obviously someone reading the label wants to know how many calories in one of their fucking chicken thighs! How about on average?!?

And (if I had nothing better to do) I could cut the meat off and weigh it before consuming it, but is that calorie count with or without the skin!?

Useless. How is that complying with a law to print nutrition info, by saying "varies". A 12oz fucking can of Coke says it has 140 cals. What if they were huge assholes and said something like "17 cals per 49 ml. (Good luck trying to do the math.) Servings per container: Whatever. (Ha ha, sucker.)"?

So unfortunately there's quite a bit of "letter of the law" compliance out there, making it hard.

User Journal

Journal Journal: no duh 10

From the front page: "Uber Accused of Cashing In On Bomb Explosion By Jacking Rates"

"Accused"?! Since when is "cashing in" and "jacking rates" a bad thing? I'd certainly do all those things as a worker, if I could.

It's like some gay ass shit going around about some drug company charging a lot for some drug of theirs. I don't completely follow what you Lefties are railing about in any given week, so I only have a vague notion (and that's all I care to, since it's shit that's only important to you guys). But a drug company can charge whatever it wants; no one is owed anything.

I'm seeing similar shit as this in ads for one of the propositions in Cali on the next ballot. Some guy comes on TV and says something like drug companies lowered rates in some circumstance, and they didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. No duh, sherlock. Companies don't have hearts, dumbass. They're not in the fucking compassion business. And bears shit in the woods, right Captain Obvious?

p.s. WhyTF is Hillary blitzing California with ads!?? It's a total blue state. Jeebus, is she actually worried about losing here? She either must know something I don't know, or has more campaign money than she knows what to do with. If I were donor, tho, I'd be pissed, and want some of my wasted money back.

[Edit:] p.s. Also from the front page, new versions of vi and emacs have been released. Also, Vanilla Ice released a new album. On 8-track.</Stuff that hasn't matter since about an eternity ago. News for yawns.>

User Journal

Journal Journal: monopoly 8

Just saw the following comment, that I take umbrage with:

Every industry ends in monopoly is an axiom to leftists. Because Marx said it.

Now waitaminute. I'm almost as far from being a Leftist as one can be, but everyone knows capitalism naturally includes forces towards consolidation, for efficiency gains.

That's why the laissez-faire kind, or pure free market capitalism -- i.e. the extreme version of it -- is bad. Because this force, if left unchecked, will overwhelm another positive force, competition, and subsequently the good force of striving for efficiencies can end up at a bad thing.

It's a bad thing because, as a Right-winger, I'm not of the belief that we are here to serve the system. I don't believe the collective comes first over the individual, whether that be in terms of governing or economics. There is no Greater Good, except God's will.

Our political and economic systems are here to serve us. Government has no rights, and neither does capitalism; only people do. Freedom is wonderful, but there has to be a minimal amount of restrictions, or it's no longer freedom. Just look at drug addiction, for example.

You should be able to do what you want, as long as it doesn't sneakily take that away. That's why we have contract laws, and fraud is illegal; what's the point of people doing business with each other when it's not business.

Unfortunately the establishments of both the Right and Left wings have allowed, what I'll call, senseless, mergers. But that's ultimately our fault. We should've never allowed the two things we've gotten: Big Government, and Too Big To Fail.

TL;DR: Fuck the Left, and fuck the GOP establishment.

[Edit:] p.s. Non-compete and no-poach agreements should always be illegal. Individuals first.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Ask Slashdot: What "rights" did Microsoft claim today? 1

What does the new MS Services Agreement and Privacy Statement REALLY mean?

Feels like ancient history, but do you remember "Where do you want to go today?" According to Wikipedia that was their second global campaign, so on the one hand, the beast knows we want freedom, but on the other hand is the EULA and "Services Agreement and Privacy Statement" and fiendish friends.

I am not a lawyer, so I have no idea what it means. I'm sure the old one wasn't perfect, but nothing is. I'm strongly suspicious the new one is more strongly in Microsoft's favor, but that's just speculation.

Googling for analysis comes up dry, but this is an obvious case of professional courtesy. There probably are some insightful websites out there, but if the google helps us find the Microsoft ones, then Microsoft will put more effort into making sure Bing returns the corresponding results about the google, eh?

Insights? Suggestions? Where are the (significant) changes and what do they really mean? How doth Microsoft profit? And of course...

Where do I want to get screwed today?

User Journal

Journal Journal: The lameness filter is broken (again) 13

Your comments "spectacularly brain-damaged suggestion" and "drug-fueled" are why I consider your post troll like.

The above quote rendered one of my comments unpostable...

User Journal

Journal Journal: Powell did not say who he was voting for 5

In reply to the following comment took enough compositional effort that I want to keep a copy in so-called my journal.

Your comment has a false subject. ["Powell can't bring himself to vote for Hillary"] Powell has said he will not yet say who he is voting for.

Your body is also highly questionable. I remember watching at least one speech in which Powell endorsed then-Senator Obama, but I don't remember anything that approximated "enthusiastic supporter". Nor do I recall any of the marks of enthusiasm such as actively campaigning for Obama or speaking at the Democratic convention. According to my research just now, Powell only made his endorsement two weeks before the election in 2008.

One obvious lie and a highly questionable comment in such a short comment? Let me predict you are a Trump supporter, and in that case the only relevant question is "Who do you hate most?" Every Trump supporter I've met so far has been a deplorable hater, and I can only pity them. Maybe some of them can grow into less hate-filled people?

Powell is a realist. His assessment of Hillary was not particularly favorable, though I'm not sure how they compare with his personal assessment of Obama. However, it is clear that his personal assessment of Trump is extremely negative. He personally might well prefer the positions of Johnson on many issues, but he knows America has a winner-take-all system, so I predict that he will ultimately endorse Hillary or say nothing.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Yet more false equivalencies: Hillary Clinton is NOT Mitt Romney 46

False equivalencies: Hillary Clinton is NOT Mitt Romney

There are certainly some things to dislike about Hillary, but I actually think she was being refreshingly honest with the "basket of deplorables" comment. You sure can't tell from the worthless commentary of the worthless media, but it is important to understand the REAL differences.

Hillary was clear in stating that "deplorable" referred to racists and various other categories of bigots. That is, she was referring to people who hate other people, either for accidents of birth or for various acquired characteristics such as religious preference. She regarded it as deplorable that such people are eagerly supporting Trump, though I regard it as MORE deplorable that Trump welcomes their support. At this point, I am convinced the Donald is NOT faking it, and he really will do ANYTHING to become president, which includes accepting and even soliciting support from people who are deplorable or worse.

In contrast, Mitt's infamous 47% comment was really about HIS personal hatred towards roughly half of the entire population. He regarded those people as lazy bums who were never going to vote for a hard-working vulture capitalist. He was deploring their lack of HIS brand of greed, which is completely different from deploring their hatreds of other people.

I'm not sure where Romney got the exact value of 47%, but I can guess where Hillary got the "half", and even why she had to be fuzzy about it. The value depends on the exact question you ask. The question determines what kind of hatred you are measuring, and when such questions are put to Trump supporters the results range up to 70% picking the hate-filled response. Other questions elicit smaller percentages of "deplorable" responses, but "half" seems downright generous.

The latest poll shows about 40% of the voters supporting Trump, so the estimate of 20% of the voters as "deplorable" haters certainly is a lot of people. However, I think the standard of comparison here should be the percentages of voters who supported bad leaders in the past. Your political views probably don't matter as much as you think. If you deplore President Obama, then you think more than 50% of the voters made a terrible choice TWICE. If you adore Dubya, then you have to admit that more than 50% of the voters preferred Al Gore. (I'd even be curious if you have any rational and nonpartisan basis for attacking Obama, but I think I've seen all the criticisms and attacks by now, and many, perhaps most, of them qualify as deplorable.)

The original Republican Party led by Honest Abe was about constructive change (even though that led to an incredibly destructive war), and the GOP of Teddy and Ike was a party of gentlemen and their ladies. None of this applies to today's so-called Republicans led by Con Man Donald, the man of 3,500 suits, at least four major bankruptcies, and uncountable political bribes (but his tax returns would help count some of them).

User Journal

Journal Journal: I decided to submit a story again

I found what I thought was great story. I submitted it and what a change in the process now. Instead of it getting rejected in 30 seconds it has been on the fire hose for over a month. It quickly turned orange ( I still don't know what that means ) and stayed there. I guess the story is dead in the water.

I'm sure it will get deleted so here is the story for the 2 people who accidentally ended up here.

I found this article that explains CBS's real reason for the Start Trek fan film crack down. They say they are trying to stop huge money making productions full of ex Trek actors( Renegades probably) and they will ignore any small productions now and in the future.
Quoted from the article "Van Citters stressed that the guidelines were not designed to quash fan films... âoeThatâ(TM)s not what weâ(TM)re trying to do here,â Responding to compiled fan questions, Van Citters explained that CBS wonâ(TM)t be going after pre-existing Star Trek fan films which donâ(TM)t adhere to the new guidelines, nor will it be actively reviewing and policing new ones for compliance. The question is, can they be trusted not to sue any group making a fan film after the new rules came out?

I know there wasn't room for my story so they can post many more dupes.

Journal Journal: DrudgeDot Rides Again 26

We had some solid reality-stomping conservative nuttery on the front page here just yesterday, yet it only pulled in 590 comments (as of my writing this JE). I'm surprised there wasn't more circle-jerk action going on over that. While Trump doesn't exactly have hte slashdot base whipped up in a frenzy the way that had core fascists like Ron Paul routinely would, there is no doubt that the majority of slashdot commenters will happily parade to the polls to vote for Trump.

Reading through the comments, one commenter pointed out a pretty significant reason to doubt the survey entirely:

"The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943 to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine"

Which matches The wikipedia entry on the same group that orchestrated this "survey"

User Journal

Journal Journal: freaked out

So yesterday, for s&g's, I created a dummy account on, just to browse.

U: poorlonelyfred
P: Do3sntmatter

(Go ahead and log in and do whatever you want with that profile. I went to the "Remove Profile" function, and it said if I do I won't be able to log in, but they lie, of course.)

Anyways, earlier today I get a fucking email from them! To "complete my profile". I *never* gave them my TWC Roadrunner email addy. In fact, logging in with that email doesn't work, only the bogus one listed above works.

Yet when I clicked[1] the link in the email to manage my account, it went right into that profile. Even if some shit has been tracking[2] me across the web, how is my email address tied to my IP?!?!?!?

[1] Maybe I just verified to somebody that they tracked me down/mapped me correctly.

[2] IE 11's Tracking Protection feature turns out to be looking worthless. I'm not downloading someone else's list, but using the feature where it keeps a count of how many times the same resource, such as a web bug, is being used on different sites. Then it gives you a UI for those that show up across a minimum of 3 sites, that you can choose to Allow or Block. Only problem is, after a two or three weeks the list stopped being added to. (And it's showing things that have only appeared on 1 site.) Not really worth anything at all if it's limited to, whatever, only 200 items or so. (And strangely, I can't find anything about this Googling for it. Like I'm the only one on the face of the planet that's using it in that way. FML.)

p.s. fusta: If you want to respond, this is not about politics, so I'll read it; no reason to go AC.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The voters have spoken, the bastards..." -- unknown