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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Coordination, not more text (Score 4, Informative) 182

BBC is very left wing. YOU think they are good, because they slant things the way you like.

No, the BBC is objectively rated as centre right. The problem you have is that you have gone so far to the extreme right, you dont even know what the left is.

In 1951, Winston Churchill won the election as a conservative, however by modern standards he's left of Obama (who isn't left at all).

Now the BBC is a more reliable source of information for several reasons.
1. The BBC checks their facts.
2. When the BBC publishes incorrect facts they issue a correction.
3. The BBC does not rely on cliche's or appeals to fear/emotion.

Now the reason you believe the BBC is biased is because you're not familiar with what real news looks like. Real news is written in a way to present facts, Fox, Breitbart, Daily Mail, et al. are written in a way to present opinions. As you've probably lived all your life hiding and fighting facts that you don't believe in, any source that presents information, especially information in a dispassionate manner would seem very biased to you. This does not make the source biased, rather it makes you an extremist.

Also, when was the last time Fox News issued a correction, they broadcast several "mistakes" per day but never seem to issue a correction.

Comment Re:Google isn't as important as they think they ar (Score 1) 172

Does Google really think that Salon, Infowars and Breitbart readers are getting to those sites via Google? I'm sure some do, but I'll bet most go right to their site of choice.

In our world of ideological teamism - the players have picked their sides and I'm willing to bet that Google had very little to do with their choice.

Those who dont want their views challenged will be going to sites like Breitbart direct as they don't want to risk running into anything that may make them question their preconceptions.

However that is a very small number of people. The masses tend to use search engines and social media.

If anyone can successfully and accurately fight fake news, it is someone like Google. Fake news is best defined as non-fact based articles pretending to be news. Google with their experience in search and data management would be able to build a comparison engine that could compare the content of the article to known facts. Look at the content, not just the source, sure we know that what comes out of Fox News is almost entirely bollocks, so you would weight that news source as being less reliable, but they will still have their broken clock moments.

Looking at the content will also make the more legitimate news sources rely less on cheap cliches and appeals to fear/emotion.

Comment Re:Fake newsception (Score 1) 70

It's ironic that the Guardian is pointing the finger at someone else as unreliable or fake news.

Only if you live in a black-and-white world where everything is absolutely wrong all the time or absolutely right all the time. Back in the real world, certain news media outlets, which not perfect are a lot more reliable than certain other news media outlets.

To equate them all is as wrong as the news stories you are decrying.

This.

There are levels of trust. Whilst I find the Guardian as guilty as the Daily Mail in exagerating and outright fabricating the facts there are two important distinctions,
1. The Daily Mail is far worse at it. This does not excuse the Guardian, but it means I'll trust the DM far less.
2. The Guardian is far more eloquently written. This means that there is a minimum intelligence level required tor read it. Intelligent people are less likely to fall for propaganda and dont like to feel like their back is being urinated on.

So in a straight up fight between the Guardian and the Daily Mail, I'll trust the Guardian to be more accurate until corroborating information is available. This isn't to say that I trust the Guardian, as I said, they often exaggerate, but not to the point of repeatedly printing well proven lies. This is one of the Guardians bigger failures, however were this were reversed, we'd consider this kind of fabrication to be just another day at the Daily Mail.

Comment Re:Fighting words (Score 1) 148

Turns out, many people do this, and your colleague doesn't find it helpful at all.

Hey Colleague! I'm not CC'ing the boss to help you out.

This.

Lets face facts... You're doing it because you're an arsehole who thinks that name dropping and going over someone's head will get you anywhere... And the level of smug I generate when it backfires has put me on an EPA watchlist... And it always backfires.

Comment Re:Electronics Ban (Score 1) 120

Nope we are beginning to see the effect of Trump's electronics ban on Gulf airlines. They are moving orders away from Boeing to Airbus

As much as Trump deserves a good bashing, what we're seeing started long before him. Boeing only sell two aircraft families at the moment, the medium range 737 NG family and the long range 787. Both of which face fierce competition from the Airbus A320 family as well as the A330 and now the A350. The issues that airlines have had with the B787 have hurt it now the A350 is operations.

Also their withdrawal from the super heavy market has completely given that market to Airbus and their A380. Orders for B747's have practically ceased and Boeing's attempts to compete by doing a life cycle update of the 747 were laughable (same as Airbuses attempts to do the same with the A330 when the 787 came out... just to show I'm not biased).

So Boeing are receiving reduced orders due to competition and the lack of a 747 replacement.

However you're quiet right that Airbus is going to see increased options due to the Trumps attacks on the Gulf airlines, but that will take time to materialise.

Comment Re:"Revenue was not a top priority" (Score 1) 167

"Revenue was not a top priority"

Well there's your problem.

Half way there, there's an old saying I heard from a successful boss of mine years ago.

"Revenue is vanity, profit is sanity".

You don't need to just make money, anyone can get money through the door. You need to make more money than you're spending.

Comment Re:Your headphones are spying on you. (Score 1) 230

noting a person's audio history may contain files like LGBT podcasts or Muslim call-to-prayer recordings.

Why do people who, if you asked them, would say that things like the above shouldn't be stigmatized, then go out of their way to stigmatize them with an implication that content in those categories should be subject to some sort of special expectation of privacy?

Because they aren't.

Its servicing more as a warning, as we continue a slide towards fascism, these will be the first on the "first they came for" lists.

Its not that Muslims or LGBTI need special rights for privacy, its that we all need the right to privacy regardless of if you're listening to mass produced pop or prayer recordings. Muslims, etc... are used as examples because they'll be the first to suffer when rights are revoked.

Comment Re:Guilty as charged? It's my GPS. (Score 1) 344

Since Waze allows me to select routes based on real time traffic data and also share my ETA and current position with my wife/friends, I am a horrible person since I'm "using" my smartphone while driving.

Actually you're not. All studies have differentiated using a phone as a navigational device and using a phone as a phone.

When we say phone use in cars, we specifically mean using it for calling/messaging/facebook etc.

I'm ardently against using a phone whilst driving, I dont even like hands free but I also use my phone for navigation if I'm going somewhere I'm unfamiliar. I prefer Google Maps over Waze as Waze doesn't give you lane directions. I have a Kenu Airframe that sits on the vent above the stereo ando not on my windscreen, my phone sits there and just does nav, I rarely ever touch it until I'm at my destination.

Using a phone for navigation is different to using it for communication. When you use it for navigation, your brain is focusing on the act of driving and the phone is an ancillary part of that. When you're using it for communication your brain is focusing on communicating at the detriment of any other task you're doing at the time.

Comment Re:I find this thoroughly unsurprising (Score 1) 344

Plus, and I'm going to be called nasty things for saying this, but traffic accidents do not appear to be "way up", like they would be if smart phones were causing a ton of new accidents.

I'll do it.

You're a fucking idiot who is using an incredibly stupid strawman that is so obviously wrong that it physically hurts me if I try to think like the kind of brain that could create it.

Collisions due to mobile phone usage have increased. Collisions and more importantly deaths, have decreased due to other factors. The fact Drink Driving is decreasing is the biggest factor. Also the fact that cars are made safer and able to protect occupants and pedestrians better.

If you bothered to look up collisions by cause, you'll find that mobile phone use is quickly supplanting DUI as the main cause of collisions. However we all know you wont because you dont want to have to change your ways. Well tough titties princess, stop being a moron and pay attention to the road.

Your argument reminds me of my tiger repelling rock. Of course you can see there are no tigers or signs of tigers in the vicinity.... but is that due to my rock... or the fact that there are no fucking wild tigers in Colombia?

Comment Re:I find this thoroughly unsurprising (Score 1) 344

People also know the risks of fucking with the radio, looking at maps, yelling at kids, driving while sleepy, or drinking and driving. Guess what?

If you're comparing the risk of using a map or changing the radio station with using a phone, drink driving or driving whilst fatigued... you don't have a clue what the risks actually are.

there are degrees of risk, we acept certain levels of risk because it bad results are small and infrequent enough or the risk can be mitigated to that point. Using a map or changing the radio stations (note, steering wheel controls are considered a safety feature) are risks that are negligible because you dont spend 20 minutes fucking with a radio and looking at a paper map practically ensures you're paying attention to what you're doing.

DUI and using a phone are risks that are not negligible, they are risks that cannot be mitigated beyond simply not doing them and they are risks that produce very severe results. I think phones are worse than drink driving now because we've managed to get it into peoples heads that they're impaired when drunk but people still think that they're not impaired when using their phones whilst driving. The're stupid to think this, I'm not sorry for saying it and I wont sugar coat it, phone and drive then you're a bloody idiot.

I had a rather nice Honda Integra, last of the proper K20's. It was written off by some stupid tart who was on the phone in her Hyundai Getz because she didn't see that every other car had stopped because of traffic. Went into the back of me at 40 KPH.

Using a phone whilst driving doesn't just delay your reactions like fatigue or drunkenness, it removes them completely as your attention is solely on the phone (Humans don't multi-task, we task switch like hyperthreading and we're not very good at it). Like the silly tart who went into the back of my Honda, you will simply not notice the hazards when you're staring right at them. Your brain wont even register my brake lights, it wont tell your slovenly hoof to move to the stop pedal, the first you'll know about it is when you're eating your phone thanks to your airbag. If it was just you, I wouldn't mind if you lunched on Takata's finest products all day, however your stupidity affects me because my car is now a wreck because you don't have the discipline to pay attention to the most dangerous activity you will probably ever undertake in your life... driving.

Beyond this, I'm probably going to punch someone sitting at a green light because they're too busy staring at their phone (we can tell you're doing it, your crotch really isn't that interesting. Its easy for a decent driver to tell if someone is driving on their phone. You depart your lane, dont notice when traffic has sped up (or slowed down, as detailed above). It is slightly different the way a drink driver acts, a drink driver will attempt to correct their actions (I.E. swerving in and out of their lane) a Moron On the Phone (MOP) will keep departing their lane until they either hit something or get the horn from a driver who is paying attention.

We need a zero tolerance attitude for phone users. Take their licenses and take their cars if they keep doing it. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Abuse it and you should have it taken away.

Comment Re:They asked nicely, he refused (Score 1) 233

he who runs away lives to fight another day.

He who runs away lives to run away another day.

Its easy to tell who has no idea how to fight on the internet.

If you stand and fight against an opponent who can easily flatten you, you're going to get flattened. If you run away, you survive to fight a fight you can win.

Pretty sure Sun Tzu covered this shit pretty early on in his treatise.

The greatest military defeats of WWII came from leaders who refused to allow a retreat. Running away isn't cowardice, it's smart. It gives you time and resources. Winning is about picking your battles, sometimes this means that you surrender the battles that dont count or cant be won at that time so you have the ability to win the ones that count or come back when the odds are in your favour.

If Hitler had allowed his troops to fall back to the Polish/Russian border the Nazis still would have been beaten, but the Russians would have expended so many more troops and resources that eastern Europe might not have suffered 50 years of communism.

As someone who knows enough Krav to reliably beat most untrained opponents, I'll still back away from a fight if I can because:
1) Even though I'll probably win, I'll still get hurt. Hell, I get hurt enough just training.
2) I don't feel the need to win dick measuring contests.

Comment Re:The three golden rules of borrowing (Score 1) 399

Exceptions to all of these. 1) Credit aggregators can change 21% interest debt to 6% interest debt. That is a better move than defaulting or bankruptcy in many cases.

GP was not talking about debt consolidation, he was talking about the kind of people who get another credit card to pay off their current credit debt. The problem with these kinds of people is that they've convinced themselves that they've beaten the system and can keep getting easy credit forever to avoid interest. This usually doesn't last long and they dont go to a debt consolidator until it's too late.

With debt consolidation, you aren't borrowing more, you're restructuring your existing debts. So the GP's adage remains true. Besides, if you need debt consolidation, you've already floated yourself down shit creak sans paddle, you've just reached a point where you've admitted it. You've also agreed to screw your credit history/rating so even getting a phone plan is difficult at that point.

2) Food and rent for housing are unavoidable fixed costs and you need both to live, regardless if you have cash now to pay for them.

If these costs are exceeding your earnings, you need to reduce them. Very few developed countries have people who are truly in a position where they cant reduce costs. If they are, most developed nations have assistance programmes, both government and non governmental.

However, most people on struggle street are not there because they live in a society that has priced them out of living. Hell no, they have no money and few assets but a lot of debt. You'll find that they have a nice car, with nice monthly payments. The latest iPotato on contract, a big screen TV interest free and seemingly are able to go out on the weekends. But when it comes to rent and food... they'll cry poor. Utter bollocks, they are in their bad position because of their terrible choices. They could have bought an oldish Corolla outright and saved $500 a month, they could have gotten a cheaper phone on PAYG, they could have got the telly paid with the cash they saved on that Corolla and going out also wouldn't be a burden. But fuck no, they want it all now and it's always someone elses fault when they cant pay the rent.

3) Only people who have never been poor utter such classist nonsense.

Now you demonstrate you know absolutely nothing about what the OP said.

Its not classist at all. I doubt you even know the meaning of that word because people of all classes can build up savings. It doesn't matter if you're an upper middle class Frenchman or the daughter of a Thai farmer, and I've seen plenty of the latter apply themselves and build up enough money by working to build a small house in Issan by the age of 35 (they do start working in their teens though).

What the GP said is that you should put money away from every paycheque and it is possible for someone on minimum wage to do just that. It isn't classist to say that you should save to be financially secure, that is your entitlement complex talking.

And yes, I was from in the poorest part of Adelaide (Elizebeth). There are foods I refuse to eat because they have a mental association with abysmal poverty in my mind. Not that I look down on those who like to eat egg on toast... but when that was all your family could afford to put on the table, you'd develop an aversion to them too. I applied myself and got out of the ghetto, now I live in a nice part of England and am currently on holiday in Colombia. Because I remember what it was like, I'll never look down on anyone, especially anyone working for an honest Peso. I certainly dont use bollocks terms like classist to defend an entitlement complex.

Comment Re:After a couple of decades of doing income... (Score 1) 399

tax returns on the side for friends since I like seeing what people make, I've noticed it's more about throwing money away on stupid stuff rather than lack of money that's the problem. At my company, all of the developers make $140k or more a year, and they constantly whine about having no money. No one in the office goes out to lunch any longer because they can't afford to eat. Working through lunch is depressing. You should get out of the office and talk to people. My office mate just wasted $12k on an expensive stove, and he doesn't even cook. My boss spent $130k on a BMW and has since asked to borrow money since he's about $100 short each month. He makes over $200k!

Just because someone earns a lot does not mean they're good with money. The proliferation of easy credit in the good times exacerbates this. When there are blips in the market, the system of easy credit falls apart like it did during the GFC/Credit Crunch. Thats why we need more controls on how much credit can be handed out and for what. Borrowing more than, say 10 or 15% of your income on an unsecured loan should be treated with a lot of scrutiny. We also need to stop putting everything on credit.

However these measures will turn our society upside down as people will no longer be able to live outside their means. On the plus side, getting rid of the middlemen in most transactions will lower prices. On the other hand, if we don't change the way we treat credit, we'll have another crash that'll make people jealous of the good times of the GFC.

Slashdot Top Deals

Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this-- no dog exchanges bones with another. -- Adam Smith

Working...