Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Thoughts (Score 1) 360

1. Apricot did the "Small display integrated with keyboard" thing with a bunch of their MS DOS machines in the 1980s. You could use it as a calculator, and apps could address it directly. It was a good idea, but the lack of it on the PC meant they quietly dropped the feature when they switched to making PC clones.

2. So they're losing Esc, but they're keeping the Caps Lock key? Even Google has the design sense to lose that.

Comment Re:They both look the same from here (Score 1) 12

Read the definition of fascism. It simply doesn't require racism.

Yes, it does. This is the umpteenthm time you've made this claim, and it's why I'm going to plonk you now. I've explained it to you. I've even linked to Mussolini's own words and actions on the subject. You've outstayed your welcome, using sophistry to push forward the utterly stupid claim that racism isn't part of fascism.

Just because the term was coined in the 1900s doesn't mean that it wasn't practiced before

Yes, it does. The term and the ideology were invented by Mussolini. Mussolini had some thoughts, he gave a name to them. He didn't announce "Hey guys, I've come up with yet another synonym for totalitarianism", which would have been pointless, given totalitarianism has plenty of synonyms already.

If she was such a big fan of democracy, why didn't she object to what the DMC was doing

Because what the DNC did was a non-scandal. You had people in a political organization admitting in emails that they preferred one candidate over another. That's called real life. The DNC leaks revealed little of substance beyond one issue DWS rightly resigned over that Clinton had no knowledge of.

Hillary also promotes violence (promoting war is certainly promoting violence)

Promoting war is not promoting violence against your political enemies. Osama Bin Laden has never run in an election against Hillary Clinton. Clinton has never declared war on Trump.

But if you want recent scapegoating, just look at her refusal to say that the leaked emails are true or fake, instead using the Russians as scapegoats to distract attention from the core issue)

As I've explained to you several times before, they're not her emails, and it would be incomprehensibly stupid for her to confirm something she has no control over is "genuine".

As far as the Russians go: she has protested that the Russians are involving themselves in the US election by committing illegal acts and leaking one side's emails. She's not the originator of that claim, that's the official position of the US government. She is entirely entitled to be pissed off that the Russians are trying to influence the US election, still worse by illegal means.

Suppression of truth and trying to control the story in the media counts. And she certainly did all she could do to defend Bill and attack his accusers when they were telling the truth.

No, it doesn't "count". Trying to control the story in the media is normal behavior for every politician, it's called spin. As for attacking her husband's accusers "when they were telling the truth" (which hasn't happened very often), she's entitled, as his wife, to believe him, and defend her husband.

You're zero for six, or maybe more than six, I've lost count, and you've become truly offensive. I appreciate trolling is your specialty, but this has gone far enough. One of the candidates at this election meets the definition of a fascist. The other is merely a little dishonest and a bit of a war monger. This election is - casting Clinton in the worst possible light and arguably far worse than the facts support - Mussolini vs Nixon, not Mussolini vs Franco.

Of course, you'd probably argue Nixon was a fascist too. But that's because apparently Canada's education system is just as terrible as that in the United States. Who knew.


Comment VR, huh? (Score 2) 63

Let's see.

2160 * 1200 (Oculus Rift CV1) 3 bytes per pixel * 8 bit depth * 90 FPS (Oculus Rift required spec) = 5.5 Gbps.

3840 * 2160 (4K) * 3 bytes per pixel * 8 bit depth * 90 FPS (Oculus Rift required spec) = 17.9 Gbps. At 60 FPS that drops to 11.9 Gbps. To fit in 8 Gbps you have to drop the framerate to 40FPS, which isn't really good for VR.

Yeah, it works for the CV1. But anyone who's used one knows that a higher resolution is badly needed, so obviously the next iteration will have to be better. I've been hearing talk of 8K not being enough for ideal performance.

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 362

It's also not Facebook, it's a few top people at Facebook. And there are at least two top people at FB who are very publicly associated with Trump (albeit one has the self awareness and sense of decency to at least be embarrassed and ashamed about it.)

This is a non-story, and like certain other non-stories (OMG! A low level Clinton staffer was caught spitballing ideas about how to demonstrate Trump supporters are violent!) it's an attempt to muddy the waters and get people to forget wide truths (Facebook has pro-Trump [1][2] people on its board, Trump has actually supported violence against opponents.)

Comment Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel (Score 4, Informative) 362

Both sides!!!1!?!!!

Thiel gave $1.25M to a candidate who'd just had it revealed he has serious problems with women (to put a politically correct spin on it), who is/was telling people he wouldn't accept the results of the election if he loses, and who previously has supported violence against his opponents, who is threatening legal sanctions against his opponents and the press, and who has engaged in racial scapegoating and in dehumanizing minorities.

Clinton has done none of those things (with the possible exception of one dubious comment about "predators" aimed at criminals in the 1990s that she's since apologized for.) So yeah, even though we don't like Clinton very much, we absolutely reserve the right to be angry that someone's response to a candidate boasting they can sexually assault women and get away with it is to give him money.

If Thiel had given money to Jeb Bush, nobody would have bat an eyelid. Nobody was angry when numerous billionaires gave Romney, McCain, or Bush Jr lots of money at the last few elections either. The fact you can't tell the difference between donating to Trump and donating to those guys or Clinton suggests you've been living under a rock this election campaign - or else actually think there's nothing wrong with sexual assault, opposing democratic elections (and supporting violence in politics), silencing critics, and attacking minorities.

Comment Re:Told ya (Score 1) 319

I didn't predict it would fail, but I didn't predict it would succeed either. In my heart I couldn't think of many bigger wastes of money (maybe spending $1.5M on Trump's election campaign?) but frankly products from Apple I thought couldn't possibly gain traction have ended up leaping off the shelves.

The talk about the Apple Watch felt like the talk about the iPhone - which if you remember, when it finally came out, wasn't programmable, had a 7 hour battery, was stuck on EDGE, and in some ways was inferior to some of the better flip phones (which had apps, and SD cards, and you could Opera Mini on them, and the battery would last for days, etc.)

But it was a success, even in its crappy 1st generation form, and most of us who shrugged at the time feel like we probably shouldn't predict the impending doom of a new Apple product hyped at Daring Fireball, lest we be made to look stupid again.

I still don't see why you'd want a watch that requires you do more than glance at it to tell the time.

Comment Re:Seems like violating the 4th amendment, not the (Score 1) 427

Former Lancaster CA resident here.

I don't know anything more about this story either. But it sounds highly atypical. Lancaster doesn't have its own police force, and contracts with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Dept. for coverage. As a general rule they're lighter-handed than the average metro cop shop, possibly because they're spread thinner and don't have time to pursue bullshit.

But a few years ago, when the Feds told L.A. County that they'd have to reduce their jail population -- they picked out the problem prisoners and dumped 'em wholesale in the Antelope Valley. What had been isolated perps sneaking around in the dark suddenly became swarms of perps boldly going in broad daylight. Theft abruptly grew from the usual petty urban stuff to a cottage industry (particularly for metal), and same for gangs and drugs.

So I'm thinking this might have been a sting against a large drug or metal-fencing operation, using the cellphone thing as cover for what they were really after, not to mention as a quick way to ID both those present and those who needed pursuing.

Not justifying their action (which was, IMO, blatantly unconstitutional), just thinking of rationale based on the local situation.

Comment Re:Secure the gateways (Score 1) 340

The easiest security is to not give access. People with baby monitors want to view the video stream. They really don't want to use the debugging back door to run a shell command to allow the devs to troubleshoot a problem.

The servers should limit themselves to "How should I connect to this? It's device ABC, with password hunter7" ("I see you're on IP, hey, so's the device, you can connect directly on!") vs ("I see you're on IP, the device isn't (and I'm not going to tell you where it is), so you'll have to use me. Want a video stream?") and proxying the absolute minimum only.

That would be a meaningful improvement in security that would reduce the ability of their devices to be hacked.

Comment Re:Snowden also did something illegal (Score 3, Interesting) 356

And how do you think the media would have reacted if the Trump campaign did something like this to elicit a violent response?

They covered it, which is why you're being obtuse and this entire "scandal" is an exercise in BS designed to muddy the waters and give cover to Trump by creating a false "both sides" narrative.

There is precisely one side, one side, in this discussion where the CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT has SUPPORTED VIOLENCE ON HIS BEHALF. You know that. O'Keefe knows that. It's precisely why most of us are so fearful he might become President. It's unheard of in modern political history for a Presidential candidate to incite violence on his behalf.

And while he's constrained - a little - by the law right now, the fact he's willing to support violence by his supporters means we have good reason to believe that - if Trump wins - there will be no fair elections in 2020. Because as President he can and probably will prevent any legal consequences for those who threaten and deal out violence against his enemies.

Hillary Clinton has not in any way endorsed violence. And frankly, the best Trump's supporters can do to muddy the water is find some low level operative who says he might hypothetically support an operation designed to expose the fact that Trump's supporters are violent.

So with respect, stop pretending you're arguing any legitimate point here. You're not. You're trying to normalize violence in an election. You need to ask yourself if you're going to continue to do so, or whether you have the guys to re-evaluate what you've been calling for.

Carry on down this path, and you, and America, are in serious danger.

Comment Re:Snowden also did something illegal (Score 1) 356

Sure, here's a top official in the Trump campaign offering to pay the legal fees of anyone who beats up protestors at a Trump rally:


Notice, incidentally, that this isn't some low level idiot in the campaign brainstorming about ways to make their rival look bad by taking advantage of a group already known to be violent, but a high up official promising that those who instigate violence on Trump's behalf will be shielded legally from the consequences of their actions.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any program which runs right is obsolete.