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:We knew this going in (Score 4, Insightful) 506

Global warming will kill us, but, mass poverty will kill us sooner.

A) No, poverty won't kill us. Income inequity and the gutting of health, education and social services will kill some people—far too many, to be sure— but mostly it will reduce the quality of life for a generation or so. Undesirable? Yes. Deadly? Not for most people.

B) The reason for climate action today is not because it's going to affect us today. It's because every day of delay compounds the problem. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're the type of person who changes their oil regularly and sticks to the vehicle maintenance schedule, because ignoring things until they become critical is costly and stupid....

C) If I have to carry B)'s analogy any further, there's really no point in even responding.

Not everyone assumes Trump is unalloyed evil. But Breitbart, on the other hand, is deliberately indulging in the kind of corrupt, amoral behaviour you claim that Donald Trump needs to deal with as his first priority.

[editor's note: Here is where the poster loses his shit at the willful blindness of this defender of the indefensible.]

In layman's terms, they fucking lie and lie and lie about climate change, and you can't get that through your fucking head. Instead, you defend the very fucking liars you claim are ruining this globe by pooh-poohing the fact that they fucking lied and claiming that the thing they fucking lied about isn't that big a deal.

Here's the problem with that situation: If you're so fed up with political corruption, why the fuck are you defending the very people who are perpetuating the problem? And don't give me any 'but Hillary' shit. I don't give a flying fuck about Hillary. I don't care if she's the devil. I am specifically concerned that you, sir, are defending liars in your paean to the need to end a culture of corruption. Because I don't fucking get it.

Comment Re:Doubleplusgood! (Score 1) 394

Said in every locker room every day. And not just in the guy's locker room - women are just the same when guys aren't around.

I say this with all the respect this statement deserves: Fuck you it is.

As someone who's spent more time in locker rooms than a lot of you, I have never once in my life heard someone bragging about forcing himself on women, and that 'they let you do it.' And you know what? Even if in some twisted world this actually is the reality, it's still fucking sick. It's describing criminal behaviour. Someone grabs any woman's pussy where I'm in a position to see it, they're going to be physically restrained until the cops come. Not kidding.

If you're cool with someone acting like a total asshole to someone else, then you need to check your attitude, because only an asshole would think that was alright. So fuck you, and fuck your normalisation of criminal behaviour. That's my sister, asshole.

Comment Re:Encrypt! (Score 2) 394

If you're sending anything important in plain text over the Internet these days, you're as good as asking the government to read it.

What a completely ------ thing to say to someone like -------! I can't figure out why people like you always ---- and ----- when you could be ---ing. Seriously, do you even ---- it? I for one trust out ----- over----s completely. Rule Brit------!!!

(and now I have to write a bunch of other useless prose to get by Slashdot's junk filters. Which is a really useless filter. I mean just because goatse ASCII is a thing doesn't mean no one ever had any legitimate uses for copious punctuation. My word, are we really reduced to such silliness? How much more of this do you think will be required before the filter finally lets this past? Probably a little more still. Hang on, let me preview.... Nope. still not enough. If this doesn't improve soon, I'm just going to load up a Tolstoy eBook and start pasting in sections of Anna Karenina, but then again that would probably just set off the plagiarism filter. Heathens have no appreciation for satire, I tell you.)

Comment Re:Crybabies (Score 4, Insightful) 524

The Russian Jews sent my still living uncle to a gulag back before WW2....

That's the strangest spelling for 'communist'[*] I've ever seen.

...we don't hate the jews, we just wish stupid people like you learned a bit more about history.

Why, because it would save you the trouble of learning actual history?

[*] Oh, OK, if I must: YES, there were Jews among the party apparatchiks at a couple of points in the Leninist/Stalinist period. They were trusted to varying degrees, but were subject to purges, too, depending on a number of factors, not the least of which was endemic anti-semitism among the Russian populace in general. But yes, some of them actually prospered under Stalin when millions of others were dying. This was not typically because of their Jewishness, but because they had other survival skills, some of which were less than admirable, this being Stalin's Russia and all. The Baltic states suffered terribly under the Soviets, but not because of The Jews.

Comment Re:Tell them what to think! (Score 4, Insightful) 667

Hey, go for it!

In fact, why not eliminate the middle bits and just cut to the chase. In your next issue, just put:


Because he's not insane. He's a buffoon, and so pathologically needy that he will say virtually anything to anyone, but that's not news. We don't run a celebrity gossip site. And this particular story is about his advisor, not Trump himself. You see, we report actual news. Which was my original point.

What we do run is a newspaper in a part of the world that is already feeling the effects of climate change, with direct and tangible economic and social impacts. So when a top climate denier says that he intends to cut the legs out from under an integral part of the climate science community, and claims to be acting to stop political interference with climate science.... That gets a big headline. We're running it tomorrow.

And yes, editors do sometimes talk like that. In jest, but mostly because if you can't maintain your gallows humour, you won't be an editor for long.

Comment Re:Politicized Science (Score 4, Funny) 667

Jzanu was gentle.

I would have said, "... you goddam major fucking batshit crazy under-educated piece of whale shit."

You guys. Stop holding back.

I would have said, "FUUUUUUUU-UUUCKK YOOOOOUUUU you gormless little spit-dribbling, smegma-gobbling, louse-brained, FAS patient. I've seen nematodes smarter than you. You couldn't calculate the number of fingers your mother used to scrape your father's cum out of her arse when she conceived you. You couldn't analyse the club your mother beat you with because you were too fucking stupid to shit anywhere but in your own shoes. In conclusion: fuck yourself. Fuck you from your your cum-encrusted New Balance sneakers to your shit-stained khakis... all the way to that Dap-smeared monstrosity you call your head.

Also: Fuck you.


Comment Re:Quit blowing smoke! (Score 4, Insightful) 667

Totally agree. The Trump administration is "poised" to eliminate climate science, quote from campaign advisers, and concerned scientists make up this article. Come back when you have something to report.

The advisor designated to oversea future planning related to NASA says, 'we're going to cut a $2+ billion NASA program that not coincidentally provides critical baseline data to climate scientists because politicians shouldn't meddle with client scientists.'

May I offer my professional opinion, as someone who runs a newspaper: That is something to report.

That's not just any old thing to report. That's something that you report in the World News section. Above the fold. With a 4 inch headline. And an entire editorial department asking the reporter, 'Really he said that? Because no sane person would say that. He's that fucking dense? Yeah? He did? Okay, fine. Zane, drop a hundred words from the second item. We're just going to print WTF fifty times below this article.'

Seriously, if you think this is a reasonable, unremarkable pronouncement from a member of the presidential transition team, you are not entirely sound in the head. I mean that in all sincerity. Get checked. Because you're not thinking rationally.

Comment Re:Brexified! [Re:I feel sorry for you guys. No jo (Score 5, Funny) 395

Looking across the pond and seeing what's going on in the US right now is so patently absurd

Look who's lecturing us: YOUR country Brexited your asses into recession.

That should give you an idea just how fucked you really are. When even Boris Johnson is all like, 'what a muppet!' you should probably take note.

Comment Re: Clinton Machine (Score 1) 149

Thanks to Wikileaks we now know for a fact that she rigged everything against Bernie with the help of her minions in the DNC.

It's a FACT. A FACT, you say. That Clinton's team and others in the DNC began liaising about how to handle her candidacy... after it became mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the nomination. Yes, after, you fact-hungry person, you. Check the dates. Yeah, the fix was in, and the game was rigged... right from the moment the democratic process of voting for a nominee made her selection a certainty.

That, sir, is a fact. And you are welcome to try to prove to me that it's a lie, but only using actual, you know, facts.

Comment Re:Goes both ways (Score 5, Insightful) 499

I at least as many anti-Trump memes as anti-Hilary memes.

That's kind of the point. Unfiltered access to the modern equivalent of the yellow press means that people were free to follow their prejudice (in the Latin sense of the word) down the rabbit hole of their choosing.

More people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump, but no matter the outcome, the margin was vanishingly small. Basically, people just chose their narrative and cleaved to it, nourishing and sustaining it with the self-reinforcing feed that Facebook provides.

Trump is not going to 'drain the swamp', and Hillary was never anything but the enemy of ISIS. But in the final analysis, nobody fucking cares. And why should they? We just watched two straw dolls dance for 15 months, each accompanied by a back story knocked together by the political equivalent of an oxycontin-addicted non-Union Hollywood hack who's just been told the franchise needs a new Avenger.

Comment Most Good Browsers Have This Feature (Score 2) 240

Most good browsers have this feature built in. You just need to know how to find it:

1. Type 'snopes' into the address bar.
Does it bring up the Snopes website?

2. Type 'Politifact' into your address bar.
Does it bring up the Politifact website?

If you answered yes to these questions, then your browser supports fact-checking natively.

What I would really like to see is some kind of measure of reputability. Not a measure of how much people trust a particular resource, because that turns into a faith-based exercise. But some kind of algorithm that measures the degree to which other sources rely on a particular source of information, and how frequently they reference it relative to other sources. Kind of a PageRank for information sources. It would hardly be a perfect measure, but it would help people learn to assess the source.

If nothing else, it would pull the rug out from under the Macedonian troll site cottage industry.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If you can, help others. If you can't, at least don't hurt others." -- the Dalai Lama