Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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 3, Insightful) 155

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 4, Funny) 155

...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:Raised bar will be bypassed (Score 1) 111

The watermarking will just be removed and life will go on.

Hint: "real time". Can you identify the watermark without comparing your stream to someone else's stream? Can you do that while streaming your copy to a pirate repeater? Can you do that before sending out the first unique marker that identifies your stream?

I mean, if you can, you are indeed l33t. If not, the banhammer, she swings for you.

Comment Re:My network has 100% uptime. 2-0 team is undefea (Score 5, Funny) 236

  It's extremely unlikely that both providers will go down at the same time. It's extremely unlikely that both the Cisco (or pair of Ciscos) and the pair of Junipers will crap out simultaneously.

...says the guy who has obviously never run a Juniper. :-)

Comment Re:Obvious takeaway here? (Score 1) 41

Given thus finding, what does this say about the CIA's goals?

If their algorithms are neural networks trained to find common links to radical jihad videos to recruit *foreign* fighters from halfway around the world, and the problem they're trying to solve is identifying kids developing ties to *local* gangs, using this tool might not be the smartest choice. That doesn't mean the tool is or isn't effective for the purpose of identifying people who are interested in what ISIS has to say.

Comment Re:Groping (Score 1) 394

And he's trying to cause election day violence.

I'm not saying to go violent, but we have to watch, folks, because our democracy is being stolen by the media, by the government, by a bunch of lying whores too ugly to grope, by SNL, and by illegal aliens who get airlifted from Mexico to the inner cities so they can vote five times for Crooked Hillary! It's all rigged, the system is totally rigged, folks, totally rigged, and you know it's true because if Trump loses, believe me, everything is rigged, I can tell you that much.

Comment Re:Groping (Score 2) 394

Conservatives seem to be more concerned with hypothetical scenarios than things that actually happen. Hypothetically, a good guy with a gun might shoot a bad guy with a gun, a guy might put on a wig and enter a women's restroom to leer at girls, a Syrian refugee will show up in Chicago and vote 10 times for Clinton or set off a fission bomb, etc. The fact that these things never happen doesn't matter- if they can *imagine* it occurring, that's enough.

It's amazing how many people are convinced of "voter fraud" without actually thinking about what it means. Voter fraud means someone stands in line, votes, then gets back at the end of the line and votes again- thus risking years in prison in order to get in one extra vote! Which is believable if you're utterly incapable of putting yourself in another person's shoes and imagining what they might be thinking.

Ever since voter fraud paranoia took hold, governments have been policing for voter fraud more vigorously. And so far the only offenders have been conservatives trying to prove how easy voter fraud is.

Comment Re: Four words (Score 3, Informative) 200

Depends on your point of view. If you're a customer, the point of a pod is to make you a cup of coffee. But in Keurig's eyes, the point of a pod was never to make coffee, it was always to make a profit on each pod sold.

However, third parties figured out how to make pods, too, and none of them paid Keurig royalties for doing so. This upset Keurig greatly. So they came out with Keurig 2.0, with a built-in Genuine Keurig Pod Detector (an LED and photo transistor that detects Keurig's invisible ink printed on the pod's foil top.) This invisible ink thwarted the evil third parties pods by reporting to the coffee maker's owner that "no valid Keurig pod was detected". This of course made all the coffee drinkers go back to buying Genuine Keurig Pods, making Keurig profits go up again.

Except it didn't. The day after they came out, enterprising coffee drinkers figured out this nonsense and simply taped an old Keurig label onto the detector, and continued using their third party pods. Some third party pod makers provided a free clip-on reflector printed with the invisible ink that fit over the detector. And all the blogs were atwitter with the Evil that Keurig had wrought with Keurig 2.0. The demise of the company was predicted, buckets of tar and feathers were gathered, and the peasants grabbed their pitchforks and torches.

Except that didn't happen either. Most people got on with their morning coffee, Keurig looked stupid for a while, and the whole tempest in a teapot blew over.

Comment Re:they'll never sell... (Score 2) 200

To paraphrase Thomas J Watson "I think there is a world market for about twenty Saturn rockets."

And that's not just counting the Saturn Vs.

Unimaginative.....If only they'd have kept building them, through economies of scale, we'd have a Saturn rocket in every household appliance by now.

Those F1 motors should heat that kettle up right quick.

Comment Re:Finally a chance to do things right (Score 0) 275

All citizens will use Dvorak keyboards, the metric system, drive on right hand side of the road, nonsmoking, use vi text editor, do not use system d

...replace tabs with spaces, 3 spaces per tab. Use a base 12 number system (this of course conflicts with the metric system, we'd have to create something better). Tau instead of Pi.

Comment Re:Forget Mars... (Score 2) 348

From what I read elsewhere, one of the Martian moons would become a way station for the initial flyby and landing missions.

The thing about a mission to Earth's moon is that if there is a major failure it would only take a few days to return to Earth. It would still take months to get back from Phobos or Demos.

Comment Re:Forget Mars... (Score 4, Insightful) 348

Colonizing Venus with floating cities is a far more sexier venture.

...or at least send a solar powered robotic drone into the atmosphere. The winds can get a little rough (over 200 kph) but we would have a freakin' plane flying around through the clouds of another world.

Before sending people to Mars we should send a practice mission to the moon for 2 years. If you can't send people to the moon and have them survive on their own for 2 years, you certainly can't send them to Mars.

Slashdot Top Deals

For large values of one, one equals two, for small values of two.