Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:I hear Hillary participated in this study (Score 2) 101

This was a classic case of little lies leading to big ones. NOBODY ever cared for one instant whether this guy was for the Iraq War in 2003. 70% of the population was for it. A normal person would say, "well, I guess I forgot I said that, since after all this was 13 years ago". But that almost sounds like an apology, or at least admitting to an imperfection- which he will not do unless an ISIS fighter is behind him with a sword. Instead he has to double down and construct an imaginary alternative universe of conspiracy theories where people are spreading malicious lies about him, trying to insinuate that he favored the Iraq War- as if anyone ever gave a flying fuck in the first place.

Comment Re:I hear Hillary participated in this study (Score 3, Funny) 101

...and she voted for the Iraq War. Donald Trump did not vote for the Iraq War, was against it, and said so. I hear people have tapes of Donald Trump saying he was for the Iraq War. It's all fabrications, all lies. Donald Trump does not tell lies. Donald Trump is a very honest person, very decent person. The best. The best. And all these people faking audio tapes, making all these fraudulent, phony, tapes, are all linked to Hillary's campaign rigging the election. All these people coming out of nowhere, saying "Trump, even though I never met him, he was for the war, I heard him say so on the radio." No witnesses. All lies. It's a huge scam, people, a huge scam. Donald Trump exhibits only a narrow subset of normal human behaviors which does NOT INCLUDE PATHOLOGICAL LYING but does include referring to himself in the third person- that makes me smart.

Comment Re:I love the Pi. (Score 1) 49

Pi is cheap. It's not documented well at all (because Broadcom), and it's far less widely available than commodity PCs, tablets, and phones (which I can buy cash-and-carry at Walmart and, sometimes, even Aldi).

Hobbyists like it because it is cheap, and it has the GPIO lines from the SoC built-out on a header.

End-users like it because it is cheap, speaks HDMI, and runs Kodi and Retropie.

But it's not fast. It's definitely built down to a price. And open? No. Not even a little bit, unless you count the fact that "it runs software, as long as you have the right binary blobs" as being "open."

Comment Re:Monopolies are bad (Score 1) 70

But it's just an automotive fuse.

In 10 minutes, I can walk to any of three different places and buy an automotive fuse.

Why in the fuck would anyone bother with going online and manually enter everything including blood type, just to buy an automotive fuse? Especially if they're going to pick it up in person anyway?

Comment Re:Misplaced effort (Score 1) 67

We need to keep working toward a system where our Senators and Representatives actually know what We The People want and need.

What makes you think that they don't? I'm rather certain that most of them know that most people don't want children used as experimental subjects without their parents permission. But the legislators have other priorities.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 235

There *IS* no conservative candidate for Presidency. A conservative is one who wishes to conserve some currently existing state or feature. I often think of myself as a conservative, though only on some issues. The Green party is traditionally the most conservative of the existing parties, but it's never been all that conservative. People who want to "go back to the good old days" are not conservative, they are reactionary. Being conservative often works, but being reactionary never does. See "Dollo's Law" with particular attention to why it is valid.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 235

This may depend on exactly how one interprets the phrase "wall". In a figurative sense one could interpret, e.g., the very existence of the border patrol as a wall. In that vein anything that one did to hinder immigration could be interpreted as fulfilling that pledge. Say letting contracts to build radar stations to companies that are subsidiaries of Trump, inc.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 235

It's not new. The specific ideas that they are intolerant about have changed, but there's long been a large group of people on slashdot that are intolerant of ideas they don't like. In this it reflects society pretty accurately. The difference is that consequences of intolerant actions (downvoting) are separated from intolerant speech. Some of the separation is in time, but other are not. If you prefer to vote something up, you look for ideas or statements that appeal to you. If you prefer to vote something down, you look for ideas or statements that distress you.

Comment Re: I don't agree that these are "conservative" vi (Score 1) 235

Go actually READ the Constitution. Parts of it apply to all people. Parts don't. They could use a bit of clarity in places, but it's usually pretty clearer. It's a LOT clearer than my state constitution. And it's not horrendously long. Only about five pages (depending, of course, and page size and font, but I'm thinking of 8 1/2X11 inch paper and 10 point Times-Roman...but this *is* an estimate, since it's been awhile since I printed it out).

But, e.g., "Congress shall make no law..." clearly indicates that a law in that area is forbidden to regulate ANYONE. Of course, before the Civil War it was expected that such areas would be regulated by the various states...but then never updated the Constitution when they changed to a powerful Federal Government weak State Government system. All they did was decide to "reinterpret" (i.e., ignore when convenient) what the constitution said. This was, and is, dereliction of duty. Probably misfeasance rather than malfeasance in the not fixing it arm of action, but clearly malfeasance in the enforcement arm. (In the case of the Supreme Court malfeasance seems more accurate than misfeasance.)

OTOH, it takes a long time to get an amendment through the adoption process. When something needs addressing quickly, you can't wait for the Constitution to be fixed. But ignoring that problem doesn't get the problem solved, it just sweeps it under the rug.

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 98

To be fair their website would not be equivalent to shouting in your basement. Google would index it, etc. But only people looking for the information would find it, and this appears to have been an advertisement intended to reach people who were not currently considering the problem. So their own web page wouldn't be a useful option.

Comment Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos (Score 1) 98

The temporary censorship is a problem, but not the major problem, as that was corrected. The major problem is that it was difficult to reach someone who both could and would address the problem. I've been in that situation so often that I find THAT problem hard to forgive.

Slashdot Top Deals

As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie