Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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

Comment Re:Waste of effort (Score 1) 71

I've literally never seen a person talk on their phone in the theatre. That's the kind of behaviour that would get your ass kicked out... Is it an American thing?

Probably, yes. People do text on their phones a lot these days, probably a lot more than talking on them.

It's certainly not a thing over here. People do turn their phones off or silent and they don't play with them during movies.

Reserved seating? You're kidding, right? I've never, ever, ever, ever seen a theater like that in my many decades of theater-going.

Most theaters over here do reserved seating. As long as you buy the tickets a couple of hours or days ahead of time you can choose what seat(s) you wish to occupy.

Comment Re:You prove you're a do-nothing "ne'er-do-well" (Score 1) 111

Wait, what's that sound? Is it the sound of the exact same BS being trotted out for a seventh time in a row? APK, the only sound I want to hear from you is soft slurping as you gently caress my balls.

Get a new argument. Haha, sorry, I know you can't. I just like to dream.

He'll still post some spam and claim victory in a game where he's the only one playing

Comment Re:You came here talking shit about me (Score 1) 111

Haha, right on schedule, again I appreciate you continuing to prove me right.

As for me "talking shit" about you, in the first 2 posts in this thread I called you a spammer (which is a demonstrably true fact, not a statement of opinion), and then I predicted exactly what you were going to do over, and over, and over again. That's not talking shit, that's telling it exactly like it is. I give you a rope, and you hang yourself with it. So that's my "shit talking", a couple statements of fact, which were quickly followed by you doing exactly what I said you were going to do.

He'll still post some spam and claim victory in a game where he's the only one playing

I realize that your limited and stunted emotional development also makes it very difficult for you to come up with any new arguments, but every single one of your posts in this thread does nothing except prove my prediction correct. It's time to quit while you're behind, save up your wits for the next ad blocking story on Slashdot and maybe spend the time to come up with a new argument. When your entire argument is you repeating the exact same crap 6 times in one thread, each time proving me right, then it becomes too easy to predict and you really need to re-evaluate your so-called accomplishments.

I'll now leave to allow you to get back to sucking my balls. Thank you.

Comment Re:Ok, so what? (Score 2) 185

Just curious, did you defend Microsoft as a private Monopoly? Do you realize that Facebook has over 1 billion people on their platform and that they effectively have a monopoly on social media? Do you think it's okay for a monopoly to abuse their position to promote a particular ideology? Would you feel the same way if they promoted right wing content instead?

Comment The fix is in (Score 4, Insightful) 185

When will people wake up and realize the fix is in? You know those ties between the media and the Democrats that the right complained about for years? Have you realized yet that the question about using facebook to prevent a Trump presidency wasn't rhetorical?

Bernie's supporters have started to wake up and realize that they are just as excluded as the right. The only difference now is that things are being exposed in plain text for the world to see. Only big business and congress have worse credibility ratings that the media.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159...

Wake up sheeple.

Comment Re:You came here talking shit about me (Score 1) 111

APK, how many times are you going to keep trying to prove me right? You've already done it buddy, take a rest. Take a little break. You've proven me right, what, four times in this thread alone? Five? How many more times are you going to prove me right?

Well, shit, might as well make it one more time, right? So, go ahead, respond to this post by saying how your work is so much more impressive than mine, even though you know fuck-all about my work, and make sure to add something about the fact that I want to remain anonymous on this site. Also, please list the same so-called "accomplishments" that you always list. I'd like one more victory before this thread ends, so please, just humor me.

Now, King Me, you fucking shitheel.

Comment Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score 1) 738

Then they should have voted for him.

Almost as many people voted for Sanders as voted for Trump. Millions of people did vote for him, a relatively unknown outsider. If he had received the same level of party support that Clinton had (which all candidates should have, if they are going to follow their own rules), and if the party had decided to do things like hold more debates like he was asking for, and if the media had covered him as anything but a fringe candidate, then maybe more people would have decided that he represents their interests more than Clinton does. But we'll never know what would have happened, because the DNC was pushing the Clinton narrative the entire time and had their friends in the media doing the same.

Comment Re:Cheesy 80's movie excuse (Score 1) 738

The problem with the emails is their source.

That's what Clinton and the DNC would like you to believe anyway. The problem isn't the source, the problem is the content. That and the fact that their systems were exposed at all.

But yeah, that's going to be the line, shoot the messenger. Blame Wikileaks, blame Russians, whatever it takes to distract from the actual content, the messages which show that the DNC was undermining the Sanders campaign as soon as they saw it as a potential threat to them pushing through the nominee they wanted. They show that the DNC engaged in a conspiracy to undermine the democratic process by not remaining neutral, by making sure that the person that they personally wanted to get nominated actually did get nominated, regardless of what other people wanted. They purposefully slanted the field in favor of their candidate. They violated their charter and are possibly liable for damages (join the lawsuit if you donated to Sanders). Past DNC chairs have also come out to say that this was completely unacceptable and should have been dealt with immediately, which of course was out of the question here since Wasserman-Schultz doesn't even try to pretend that she is anything but a Clinton surrogate.

That's great, but we must ask: what editing has been done here?

Well, apparently so much editing has taken place that no one at the DNC is alleging that there was any editing, and that the Clinton campaign and Obama both put pressure on Wasserman-Schultz to resign, which she finally did. Sounds like a bunch of fake emails, right?

This is a bunch of a bullshit spin, more of the same from the DNC and their loyalists. All of the attempts to deflect the story towards Russia, or Wikileaks, or whatever, basically amounts to "We would like to issue an apology: we apologize for getting caught." The DNC does not want to address the content of the emails, like you said, they would rather try to deflect the discussion and attack the messenger and go one acting like Hillary is the future of this country.

The line that we're going to hear repeated over and over during the convention in Philadelphia is that everyone needs to band together in order to defeat Trump. The problem with that narrative is that the DNC pushed through a nomination for a candidate who has serious problems with her ability to beat Trump, and they pushed out the candidate who consistently beat Trump in polls. If it was true that what they really want is to beat Trump then they should have nominated the better-performing candidate, not start themselves out with a handicap. Their goal is not and never has been to just beat Trump, their goal is to elect Clinton. They don't want the best candidate, they want Clinton.

Comment Charging is a big issue (Score 2) 511

Bluetooth can work fine if you don't use something a lot, but headphones are the kind of thing you may wish to use for extended periods. I've never seen a BT device that isn't massive that has any staying power. Like I have a Plantronics Voyager Legend. This is a new, high end, and fairly large ear piece. It curves over your ear and has a unit that sits behind with electronics and a sizable battery in it. For all that, it is lucky to get maybe 6 hours of talk time fully charged (which will only get worse as the battery ages). Less if you use the high quality audio mode.

That's not great, and that is for a bigass part. You take something small, like the Earin phones one of our students has, and it is a bit over an hour if you are lucky. On the other hand my little Shure earbuds will work as long as the device feeding them will. Despite the cord, they are actually no larger to carry than the Plantronics earpeice as well. Oh, and they work with my computer, my phone, my receiver, and so on with no fiddling, just plug and go.

I don't hate BT audio devices, but earbuds have good reasons to exist.

Comment Re:Headphone Jack is Pretty Crappy (Score 1) 511

Ya unless Apple makes really shitty connectors on their products, I'm failing to see how this isn't a case of user error (or someone making shit up). I can't think of the last time I've seen a 3.5mm TRS plug fail. I make a lot of use of them between my personal devices for listening to music and connecting computers to capture/presentation setups at work. I really honestly can't remember when I last experienced one fail on me. I'm not saying it never happens, but it is rare enough that it isn't even a problem I consider. They are quite reliable, in no small part because they are dead fucking simple.

Slashdot Top Deals

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Working...