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


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Why would Putin fear Clinton? (Score 2) 308

You do know why he didn't publicize his tax returns, right? His estimated inheritance was $150M in 2016 dollars, and his estimated wealth is $100M in 2016 dollars. He's managed to lose more than $1M a year. That's how he runs businesses, into the ground. Of course, he threatened to sue the biographer that detailed his finances, and the biographer said "sure, get on the stand in court, under oath, where the topic is your finances." Trump ran away and took back all his lies about the biographer.

Trump objects when you call him a failed businessman who has never made $1 in his life, but has just lost his father's fortune with style, but he won't show a tax return or open any books to prove it wrong.

At least fraud Hillary files her taxes and shared her returns.

Fraud Donald refuses to do that. And the Trump Worshipers can't think to ask why.

Comment Re:Always the same with Hillary... (Score 2, Insightful) 308

Because it's usually true. The Republicans admitted that the Benghazi hearings were political in nature, timed to weaken her in the primaries. They found nothing new, and nothing that incriminated Hillary for anything other than having a small budget handed to her by the Republicans in Congress. When there are actual conspiracies, it's hard to not see conspiracies.

Comment Re:You've got to appreciate the irony... (Score 1) 49

If the 3rd party breaks the law at the request of the government, it's treated as if the government broke the law themselves. Note, if Yahoo independently broke the law allowing them access to the emails, then provided those emails when requested, they didn't break the law at the request of the government, unless it can be shown that the initial law breaking was in response to a previous request by the government.

Comment Re: What NEEDS to happen... (Score 1) 461

Stronger, lighter, cheaper, thinner? So many contradictions in there it's amazing because you're not getting all of those.

That you are dumb doesn't make something impossible. Oppo got rid of the jack, and ended up with a phone that was, at the time, the thinnest in the world, strong (with the video to prove it because so many idiots like you assume that thin and light mean weak), light, and much cheaper than anything close from Samsung. Sure, the jack wasn't the only reason this happened, but it was a contributing factor. Drop the jack, and make vast improvements in the design.

Comment Re: Headphone Jack is Pretty Crappy (Score 1) 461

Exactly how is using a USB device easier then a simple plug?

Ask two people how a car is easier than a horse. One person from 1898, and one person from 1998.

USB is easier because it's universal. You have more options on location and presentation of the jack.

They have no drawbacks either, except for adding a few cents to the cost of the slave labor that makes your phone,

Space, weight, cost, and fragile. You missed some of the drawbacks of jacks. Also, re-read with the definition of "obsolete" being "old-fashioned". You might find that if your vocabulary is good, other people are easier to understand.

Comment Re:Poor Arguements (Score 1) 461

I have an iPhone at work, but could have opted for the android. The android choices were pretty poor. If my driving decision is the headset, I'd just carry an android for both. The real difference is the SIM. Heck, I have a 2-SIM phone for the day I get tired of hauling around 2 phones and carry one with both SIMs in it. Solves the 2-phone problem pretty simply.

Comment Re:Headphone Jack is Pretty Crappy (Score 1) 461

And the jack hole is about 1 mm larger on all sides, so 3.5mm takes 5.5mm minimum. So any of the super-thin phones drop the headphone jack because it's to thick to include and hit the marketing goals.

at least with USB-C you can physically plug in something. I hate bluetooth because it's yet another item to keep charged. And without a cord, it's much easier to forget them and leave them somewhere. The looks of it are that the owner of the phone will need to keep a [lightning|USB-C] adapter appropriate for their phone around, and you can keep using your 3.5mm headphones forever. Though anyone who uses headphones on a computer and isn't an audiophile uses USB headphones because they are easier and generally higher quality than the obsolete 3.5 analog headphones.

Comment Re:over-simplification of economy (Score 1) 448

Nonsense. Economics is the study of how people exchange goods and services.

Yes, but apparently a 'successful' economy is one which is always growing...

Sure it is. But the AC assumes that growth inevitably means increasing consumption of natural resources. It can mean that, but that actually only works in a context where the natural resources in question are abundant. Once they become scarce (perhaps artificially), then growth comes from finding ways to use resources more efficiently.

A successful economy is one which is improving the standard of living of the people in it. There is no reason why that process cannot be endless... though the definition of what constitutes improvement absolutely will change over time.

Comment Re:Question (Score 2) 448

So unlike what Marxist said central planning actually works best to quickly grow backwards, agrarian even, economies rather than improving advanced economies.

That actually makes perfect sense if you study Marx's core economic theory, the labor theory of value. In that view, all production is about organization of labor, with some attention to the sources of raw materials. There is no discussion at all of the role of innovation, or information, and the theory is focused on a world in stasis, in which the materials, processes and outputs are all well-known, and unchanging.

But progress comes from the creation of new ideas, ways to make new goods, or make old goods with less labor or less, or different, raw materials. An economy organized on communist principles has few mechanisms for encouraging innovation. The Soviet Union made a big deal of identifying and nurturing smart people and giving them the resources to invent new science and technology, but that is perhaps the least important part of the innovation that moves an economy forward. Not that new science and technology isn't hugely important, but the aggregate impact of millions upon millions of small improvements in processes and business models is larger, especially on the general standard of living. So, the Soviet Union was able to stay in shouting distance, more or less, of the United States in terms of technological progress... but was unable to keep the grocery store shelves stocked. That is in the inevitable result of a system that doesn't incentivize and reward small-scale innovation.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Catch a wave and you're sitting on top of the world." - The Beach Boys