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:Innovative! (Score 1) 33

Not stopping with TV, how cool would it be if Amazon made recommendations to be based on my past purchases?

Indeed. It looks as if you bought an 8GB USB flash drive. Have you considered this other brand of 8GB USB flash drive? What about this 16GB USB flash drive? I've been using Amazon since the late '90s and they have yet to recommend anything that I actually want to buy. You'd have thought 'you bought books 1 and 2 in this series, would you like to buy book 3?' wouldn't be too hard, but apparently it is.

Comment Re:Doesn't Netflix do this in its main interface? (Score 1) 33

>>> "the Watch List," the app will recommend shows based on the content viewers access through their Apple TV

> I seem to remember Netflix suggestions just showing up on my main content selection screen. Never having seen one, why does an Apple TV need a separate app to suggest TV shows to its viewers?

Tivo suggested things for you 17 years ago.

If iTunes was less lame, it would already be doing this (like Amazon).

Comment Re:Russia is preparing for a Trump win I see... (Score 1) 741

He can't even stay on topic for more than 30 seconds, and appears to have an overall ability to remain calm of about 30 minutes. He isn't really even suitable to run businesses, and I expect that the reality is that he doesn't run his own businesses at all.

At any rate, he's going to lose. Even if Clinton loses Florida, she's still got at least five other ways to win, whereas Trump has to pretty much win all the battleground states. Simply put, it isn't going to happen.

Comment Re:Russia is preparing for a Trump win I see... (Score 1) 741

The entire purpose of nukes in the modern age is as an existential and territorial guarantee. They are not offensive weapons, because to use them as such would lead to the much dreaded nuclear war. Countries with nuclear weapons and a reasonable delivery system, or countries who are under a nuclear power's nuclear shield, simply won't be invaded. If Ukraine had been a NATO member, there wouldn't be a Russian-backed civil war and Crimea would still be part of Ukraine, but because it gave up its arsenal for a now clearly useless guarantee of territorial integrity, and because it didn't join NATO like a number of its former Warsaw Pact neighbors did, it could easily become Russia's plaything.

A large Nuclear weapon has a lot of collateral damage. The bomb dropped on Nagasaki didn't need to happen, but the Americans convinced us that it was necessary when really only the first bomb was necessary, because that's when the Japanese and the Russians threw a panic.

This I completely disagree with. The Allies demanded unconditional surrender from Japan, just like they had from Germany. The Allies refused to accept Admiral Donitz's Flensburg Government as a de facto or de jour government, so why would they have accepted any wartime Japanese ministry? After the Hiroshima bomb, the Japanese cabinet still refused the unconditional surrender, attempting rather for a conditional armistice and surrender. The US refused absolutely, just as the Allies had done when the Flensburg Government had tried to make overtures. Even after the Nagasaki attack, a group of Japanese officers took part in an abortive attempt to kidnap the Emperor before he could command his government to surrender unconditionally.

It is a myth that Japan was ready to unconditionally surrender before either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Comment Re:The size of France? (Score 1) 741

Well, of course the claim is absurd. The only thing that could destroy such a big area would be a dinosaur killer asteroid, which would, of course, cause mass extinction all over the planet, including possibly even H. sapiens.

But a large yield nuclear device detonated in France could make large areas of the country uninhabitable for quite a long time, as well, as spreading radioactive fallout for tens of thousands of square miles.

Now, of course, striking a NATO country would inevitably lead to retaliation. Both France and the US have nuclear arsenals, and while France's is relatively small, it is certainly enough to do some significant harm to Russia, and the US, of course, has more than enough firepower at its disposal to do some nasty harm. Naturally this would lead to a near-universal conflagration which would likely lead to major geopolitical instability.

Which is why, of course, neither Russia or the United States are going to be lobbing nukes at each other or at each other's allies, and why, even if Clinton were to institute a no-fly zone in Syria, and Russian or American jets got into a firefight, while it would certainly lead to some pretty angry outbursts, isn't going to see World War 3.

We've been down this road before. The West and Russia spent forty years staring each other down, with some pretty close near misses like the Cuban Missile Crisis, and there was no WWIII. The idea that Russia, so much weaker in every respect than the USSR, represents that kind of threat is absurd. The USSR had some ability at force projection, whereas for Russia, Syria is just about the outer limit. Whether the Russians like it or not, the US has largely downgraded it to regional power, and its chief long-term concerns are now China.

Comment Re: Hmm (Score 1) 741

You mean he didn't say he grabbed women's genitals? You mean he didn't praise Putin?

As Alec Baldwin's Trump said, "The media is biased against me because they report what I say and what I do."

The fact is that the only reason Trump is where he is is because of tens of millions of dollars of free advertising. Even now, as it becomes clearer and clearer his bid is doomed, you still see news outlets talking as if he had a hope in hell, invoking the silliness of the past, like "skewed polls" and legions of "shy Trump voters", trying to create the impression that he still represents a threat to Clinton.

Meanwhile, on the ground, he still doesn't have a ground game, less than two weeks before votes are cast, and Hillary is so confident that she's not even really battling him any more, and is turning her attention to taking Congress.

And let me guess, when the inevitable happens and he crashes and burns, you snivel and whine about how the "press is biased" or invoke some moronic claim of rigged elections.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 741

Look up "Pan-Slavism". While its most pronounced iteration was in late-era Czarist Russia, the Communists quickly adopted it as an operating paradigm, and just considered any Slavic-speaking population anywhere in Eastern and Central Europe to be under its jurisdiction, and while modern Russia, largely due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, did lose control of many of its old Warsaw Pact "partners", it is doing everything it can to hang on to what's left, including invading two sovereign states to "protect" the Russian-speaking populations (sound familiar, eh, some things never change).

Russia has had the biggest baddest nuke before, but it still didn't give it military superiority.

Comment Re:Aren't they too power-hungry? (Score 1) 57

It's Intel. When most people say IoT, they mean 'embedded thing that can run a network stack, low power, probably powered by batteries'. When Intel says IoT, they mean something subtly different: 'computer, plugged into the mains, probably running Windows'. The overlap between the two is that they're both talking about insecure systems connected to the Internet.

Slashdot Top Deals

Everybody likes a kidder, but nobody lends him money. -- Arthur Miller