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:Criminal (Score 1) 528

While I am no Trump supporter and think he will be a disaster for this country the funny thing is that he's right about sticking to his original behavior and his campaign staffers are wrong. In such frustrating economic circumstances the public is very vulnerable to demagoguery (whether it's blaming immigrants or blaming "privilege") and he charmed a substantial portion of the country with his "alpha male" approach, which if nothing else, should be applauded for eliminating the likes of Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz from this race.

Even more baffling is the mainstream media openly snorting about Trump refusing to pivot, as if the Clinton family treachery of feigning left during the primaries and then running to the right during the general is somehow commendable behavior.

Truly, the country is in a terrible way when Donald Trump manages to be more honest and sincere.

Comment Re:Criminal (Score 1) 528

It will be fine to vote third party of your choice if you don't live in a swing state. All this Prisoner's Dilemma garbage is how the public is continuously convinced to vote against their best interests, and all these years of hoping that things will be better the next election has shown quite the opposite. Also I would humbly disagree that it can't impact the outcome; quite the contrary if the third parties build up enough support, they become bigger thorns in the side of the major parties that have enjoyed a monopoly on their respective wings' votes. Make them compete instead of forcing a sham down our throats every four years.

Comment Re:really want 3rd party (Score 1) 177

Hillary is a DINO that doesn't represent what at bare minimum half liberal voters want, much less many independent voters who are disgusted with both parties. We have two Republican parties running against each other this election, and as a result of the lack of representation, there will be record turnouts for third parties this time around. If it wasn't for Johnson rising on the scene and Hillary's connections putting their thumbs on the scale, the impending "#DemExit" would be a slam dunk for the Republicans.

Comment Re:Which is worse? (Score 1) 1010

The funny thing is I'm sure a lot of the very same people here on Slashdot up in arms over this issue think Assange, Snowden, Manning are heroes for releasing classified information.

...because those are examples of whistleblowers revealing to the American public all the ways the system is corrupt and working against the best interests of its people.

Clinton is currently a major agent of the corrupt system working against the best interests of the people.


As a practical matter neither one has any chance of being prosecuted if for no other reason than to save the country from turmoil (yeah let's indict a major party's candidate in an election year over some relatively minor transgression in the grand scheme of things).

Yet by not indicting her, she is about to power through to the general where Republicans will be able to carpet bomb her with the ammunition this whole fiasco has brought about.

Comment Re:It's amazing she still has defenders (Score 1) 742

Short of Hillary doing even more cheating, Trump has a pretty decent chance of winning thanks to the way the DNC has fractured their party in half. Bernie was treated poorly and the election was railroaded towards an inevitable Hillary win, and as a result some people are pledging to leave the DNC and start a new party, and many want him to run third anyway, while others are preparing to vote Johnson or Stein. Hillary is not even interested in offering any concessions to Sanders supporters, nevermind the fact that many would not trust her to keep her word anyway.

The irony is that so many expected the GOP to be the party that would cheat and pull shenanigans and deny the will of their constituents to avert a Trump nomination, and yet not only did they grudgingly accept it, it was the DNC that behaved more this way, opening the floodgates for all kinds of remarks from the right about commies and Leninists.

Me, at this point I'm cynical enough to assume that the real billionaires such as Charles Koch are going to beat Trump into submission, or make him go away, as things are further railroaded towards Hillary's coronation.

Comment Re:Not two, four to Three (Score 1) 879

There is a huge "Bernie or Bust" demographic of the Sanders campaign that is so disgusted with the dirt on Hillary that they're willing to vote for damn near anyone else (sometimes in sensible ways, sometimes in poorly informed ways). It doesn't help matters that Hillary does not act interested in winning over Sanders supporters, as seen at a recent town hall where when asked the question she simply boasted about how she was the one who was winning. While many democrats will be holding their nose and voting for her, the newer ones and the more resolute ones have vowed that they won't, even if Senator Sanders himself endorses Hillary.

It is looking to be a grim election if it boils down to the choice between a hawkish establishment politician that will push the TPP, and a billionaire (or faux-billionaire depending on who you ask) that complains the Geneva Convention holds back the military's potential brutality.

Comment It felt like a lot of arm twisting (Score 1) 88

A few weeks ago Steam started redirecting activity to a message about giving them a mobile phone number that you had to oblige/skip to get to what you were trying to reach. Then a couple of weeks later it got more aggressive. Then they started offering small discounts to anyone who gave a number. Then came the warning that without giving up a phone number they were going to hold purchased items (virtual items like trading cards and TF2 hats) for three days. Even if their intentions were simply to reduce scamming, it felt like a whole lot of pushy coercion.

Comment Re:Maybe they're playing a different RPG than I am (Score 1) 321

Which is why I find it uncomfortable when a GM resorts to the aforementioned rule.

For a game that runs any real amount of time a GM eventually has to. For very simplified systems the rules are more open ended and vague, which inevitably means more responsibility on the GM to make judgements. But, even on a very bloated and complicated system like D&D 3.5 edition there are plenty of cases where the rules don't cover bizarre technicalities or overlap in ways that simply won't make sense. Off the top of my head, a rogue can pull out a tower shield, gain total cover from standing behind it, and automatically succeed at a Hide check. There are nigh-impossible shenanigans a wizard with a very low CON score could attempt to wind up with a higher amount of HP than what's normally possible (though it would be unlikely to happen and wouldn't be worth the trouble). And there are a number of rules, especially in the expansion books, that straight up say to consult with your GM for a decision on what the benefits of your choice would actually be.

Of course, I'm sure you speak of Gygaxian bullies that create meatgrinder deathtraps for his amusement or excessively railroady ones who behave like the DM in this comic, but the fact of the matter is that someone needs to run the material, and that someone needs to know all the secrets without giving them away and make judgements for edge cases in the rules or to balance things out for a more enjoyable experience. Those last two words are important, because it can be very easy for GMs to become selfish or mean.

Comment Re:Meh. (Score 1) 321

I notice a lot of uncreative D&D players like to have their cake and eat it too in this way. D&D is about going into a dungeon, stabbing a dragon in the face and taking its money, but people want to feel righteous about doing it which leads to the rise of a bunch of pretenses about heroism. But, a lot of people just aren't that good (nor do they truly want to be) and would prefer to be themselves, yet focused on the Just Evil races which have basically been flagged as targets you don't have to think twice about the morality of wiping out. Creatures that are ugly, were born irredeemably evil, and have nice things you'd like for yourself; creatures just made for falling onto your swords.

In all fairness, in my early DMing days I'd quickly discovered that morally ambiguous scenarios descended into party in-fighting really quickly, so if you want a thinker's D&D campaign it would be wise to make sure your players are all on the same page enough to avoid that sort of party unmaking.

Comment Re:Undertale (Score 1) 321

I enjoyed the game but I have to concur that it was extremely heavy handed in its approach. You are in a setting where several monsters are openly and actively trying to kill you, who will yet also be outraged and begrudged if you defend yourself against these aggressors. Worse, it is not enough to jump through hoops to avoid killing, you have to go out of your way to befriend boss monsters in order to progress on a pacifistic path. Dishonored was much more my style for overcoming adversaries without killing them.

Slashdot Top Deals

Swap read error. You lose your mind.