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


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) 571

...to 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) 571


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) 571


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) 571

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 Re:Welcome to 2014 (Score 1) 52

Punch bug!

X just released the most advanced Y yesterday.

We used to play this game in the seventies where if you were the first person to spot a VW Beetle, you got to punch the person beside you in the side of their arm.

The CMOS transistor was invented in the year of my birth (I guess I'm dating myself) and had a good fifty year run, now officially ended with even the IEEE is publishing articles pronouncing "the industry roadmap is dead, Jim". For pretty much the whole of that time, whatever was announced yesterday was pretty much guaranteed to leapfrog any product announced six months prior. Of course, this was always accompanied by the fanfare of snivellers announcing that Red (or Green) was back in the saddle, on top of the world, once again.

Now we're at the top of the CMOS maturity curve, where the old leapfrog game is no longer the dominant paradigm. Anyone determining fitness of purpose by some aggregated synthetic benchmark is not long for this world, as an employed person. Take Nvidia, for example, which benchmarks at 0 fps after you drill out the binary blob. How much else does that synthetic benchmark not capture?

One wonders, too, how the future trolls will continue to employ themselves. Having to preface your post with an explanation of a cultural meme from the 1970s will likely take some starch out of the activity.

What's an old troll supposed to do, as this grand old steamship empties out? After younger and more vigorous trolls have established themselves on Twitter or—gasp—Snapchat?

Old Man Billy Goatee probably sticks around and fires up that old-timey radio normally reserved for sending S-O-S calls in distant corners of the world where time stands still, to tap out in Morse code "X just released the most advanced Y yesterday", hoping against nostalgic hope that some isolated South Pacific islander loses his shit, and spends an entire week jamming every ham channel available with irrepressible indignant outrage.

Here's another thing. Period costumes are pricey to maintain. They need to be dry-cleaned regularly, or soon they begin to smell.

Comment Re:Apple's on the wrong road (Score 2) 133

They occasionally undercut their competitors. The first flash iPods were cheaper than any other consumer device (including USB flash drives) with that much flash because Apple anticipated the demand and bought up an entire year's flash production capacity from several suppliers, getting a reasonable discount. No one else could get flash chips at close to the rate that Apple was paying for a while. More recently, they've used their cash reserves to build factories for suppliers in exchange for the first year of output from them. They end up paying less for chips than anyone else, and the suppliers then get to keep operating the factory and selling the output after Apple has moved on to wanting the newer process.

Comment Re:how about conference with relevant languages (Score 1) 86

niche and egghead languages aren't how the world at large does things. Of those languages in summary, Java is used. Perl used to be but Larry has been doing wonderful job of letting it die and few would choose that for new infrastructure. the rest are fads

No, no, and no.

Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
        — Edsger W. Dijkstra

I've never 100% agreed with this quote. A big chunk of computer science is about building better telescopes; and so it is with astronomy, too, that a not-insignificant part involves building better computers.

However, the real currency of the world is ideas.

Innovative computer languages express ideas about how the discipline of programming might be made better. People who study computer languages do so to prioritise ideas over mere skills, not without good motivation.

There is nothing quite so useless, as doing with great efficiency, something that should not be done at all.
                — Peter Drucker

This sentiment motivated one of the all time best ideas in computer science.

The real hero of programming is the one who writes negative code.
                — Douglas McIlroy

Unfortunately, we could have learned this lesson centuries sooner, but for some narcissistic revisionism.

If I have seen further, it is by standing on giant moraines of revolutions discarded.
                — Isaac Newton (first draft)

If I have seen further, it is by standing on the boulders of giants.
                — Isaac Newton (second draft)

Larry's glacial pace may yet reshape the landscape in a profound way. Perhaps Camelia is the moulder of giants. Time will tell.

Comment Re:In other words, Moore's law will continue (Score 1) 128

And Moore's law has never been about performance.

I don't get the selective pedantry, here. There never was a Moore's "law" about the scaling of transistors over time. Pedantically, it probably should be called Moore's prescient, off-hand, transistor-scaling extrapolation. What ultimately came to be termed "Moore's law" never had a particularly strong basis in what Moore actually said.

Even then, The Moore Attribution (thank you, Mr Ludlum) behaved in practice more like Moore's Moneylust Mandate (this was all about performance). Hey, everyone, let's all draw a straight line, then conga dance our way into the penthouse suite!

For the last ten years or so, we've all been hearing a lot of: oh, no, we actually made it under the pole again—as we always do—any perception to the contrary is probably due to the diffraction limit of human vision.

Comment Re:Ninety-nine percent of the land is not used ??? (Score 1) 202

He loses a lot of credibility with this statement.

People get old, you know.

In all, the researchers calculated, those who completed at least some of these booster sessions were forty-eight-per-cent less likely to be diagnosed with dementia after ten years than their peers in the control group. Fake it to maintain it, meanwhile, appeared to have no effect.

The man is rapidly becoming a parody of whatever it was he once accomplished.

Comment Re:Headphone Jack is Pretty Crappy (Score 5, Insightful) 525

It wears out ridiculously fast.

For what value of "ridiculously"? I don't have a single 3.5 mm jack in the house with bad connection poltergeists.

But then, I'm still running an NAD 7140 from the 1980s as my stereo amplifier. Had to go in there last week with electrical contact cleaner to take the crackle out of the volume and balance pots, but I'm sure the audio jack still works perfectly. I'd have replaced some of the electrolytics, too, if my ears could hear any defects.

Obviously, though, I'm not a desirable Apple customer on several counts (ability to fix things myself, willingness to keep using unfashionable equipment that still works fine, ability to tell whether unfashionable equipment still works fine), so there is that.

Comment Cows are not strictly herbivorous. (Score 1) 255

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 Re:What is the appeal of these things? (Score 1, Interesting) 129

I think that they're a fad in the same way that 1990s smartphones were a fad: the technology to build good ones doesn't exist yet. A watch needs to have a battery that lasts long enough that I never accidentally forget to charge it and end up with it not working (my current one is on its second battery and the first one lasted about 5 years) and be light enough that I don't notice that I'm wearing it. I have both of those from a Skagen watch, but if I could keep those requirements then I'd find it very useful to have things like my day's calendar sync'd to the watch, to be able to use it with Bluetooth for two-factor authentication, to be able to use something like Apple Pay and leave my wallet at home, and so on. Make it a quarter the current thickness and make the battery last a week and I'll happily buy one, but that isn't possible yet.

The same thing was true of Smartphones. It was obvious before the iPhone that there were a lot of useful things that a Smartphone could do, but until LiIon batteries, low-power WiFi chipsets and screens improved to a certain point, the downsides outweight the benefits. The difference between the iPhone and the Apple Watch is that the iPhone was released at precisely the time when the technology made it possible to build the useful thing, whereas the Apple Watch appears to be 5-10 years too early.

Comment Re:Hell No (Score 4, Insightful) 342

1) Chances are that "counterfeit" was made in the same factory line as the "real" one.

There have been a lot of cases of third-party batteries being made to significantly lower standards. Often the counterfeit ones are the QA rejects from the real factory.

2) Nikon wouldn't know if you you were using the "real" one or not.

LiIon batteries must communicate with the charger, some communicate things like serial numbers so they can tell it's a fake. A common failure mode is for the battery to expand significantly, at which point it may be difficult to remove it from the camera without causing damage that was obviously not done by the battery and thereby invalidating your warranty.

3) Relying on corporations to be sympathetic is pretty comical. Nikon doesn't care about you.

He's not relying on their sympathy, he's relying on consumer protection laws (you do have those in your country?). If I buy a battery from manufacturer A and put it in a device from manufacturer A, and it destroys the device, then it's clearly the responsibility of manufacturer A. If you buy a battery from A and it destroys a device from B then you're likely to have a lot of effort proving responsibility, and that's assuming that A is not some fly-by-night operator and still exists when you hit the problems.

Comment Re:Cutting corners (Score 4, Insightful) 342

As I understand the term, it's only a knockoff if it's attempting to portray itself as a different company's brand. Supermarket own brand ketchup is not a Heinz knockoff, even if it's made in the same factory with the same ingredients, because it's got someone else's name on it and isn't trying to pretend to be Heinz ketchup.

If the shoes cost $20 to make and you can get shoes for the same quality as Nike and manage to sell them for $40, making $20 profit on each one, then you shouldn't worry about putting your own brand name on them. You'll get good reviews and the value of your brand increases. The problem is when you make an inferior product and put someone else's name on it, because then you get the benefit from their reputation and they pay the cost when their reputation suffers because of the substandard goods.

Slashdot Top Deals

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- Albert Einstein