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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Umm... Hoax Listing? (Score 5, Insightful) 48

I'm surprised that no one here has pointed out that this is likely a hoax listing.

The photo in the listing is from Razor's CES suite. There's no proof, photographic or otherwise, that the seller actually has the laptops.

This is a hoax listing; a bored nerd having a giggle. Which shouldn't surprise anyone given that even after 20 years, yahoos are still putting up listings like the Ark of the Covenant on eBay.

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 21

But in saying it this way, you're attempting to imply you can provide evidence. And I am simply pointing out that there is no reason to even consider that this is a possibility. Don't tell me you will do it later, because that's irrelevant. It's no different than saying nothing at all, or even saying "I have no evidence" or "I cannot provide evidence." They are all exactly equivalent in the end, except that the other methods do not have the implication that you might actually provide the evidence, despite you not giving us a reason to believe that, so it smacks of dishonesty.

Just say nothing at all, unless you have something to contribute. You'll be better off.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 21

If not for you, then it's not difficult for anybody.

I make no claims about what is not hard for others. I do assert that most people do not do it, regardless of how hard it is.

In this case blaming the media is just doing the democrats' dirty work ...

Yawn. I am uninterested of your characterizations. Either actually make an argument against what I wrote, or do not. So far, you have not.

We all have the same power to turn our backs. You're not that special.

You are not, in any way, arguing against what I wrote.

In theory humans can make the choice.

Of course they can. So? Again: this, in no way whatsoever, implies that the media is not to blame. It just means that we have the power to ignore their bad behavior. But it's still their bad behavior. They are still to blame for it. Obviously.

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 21

Incorrect. Page views and the like are cash money.

I meant -- obviously -- there is no journalistic or democratic reason to do it. Everything has a reason.

I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton.

Of course not, you don't read the NYT.

So you have no examples, then. Good to know.

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 21

I'm not talking about evidence, I'm talking about railgunner's assertion that it's "obvious".

I get that, but the main point is that there's no reason to report it in the first place, because there is no evidence ... regardless of how much you think it might be in line with his character to do it.

Besides, it worked so well on Clinton, can you blame anyone for adopting the tactic?

I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton. Can you give an example? The main attacks I know of on her were based on hacked documents that the DNC and others admitted were genuine; on a report by the FBI that no one called into question on the facts (though admittedly we couldn't verify some of those facts, such as that the information Clinton mishandled was actually classified); and so on.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 21

The media has 'trained' us?

Yes.

Is it really so hard to turn your back?

Not for me, no. I am one of the very few who actively dismisses any unsourced report.

Where is all this *personal responsibility* that you speak of?

Of course, it is our responsibility to ignore unsourced reports. But that doesn't mean the media isn't responsible for incessantly giving those unsourced reports to us ... obviously.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 21

'Fake news' and the official narrative are frequently synonymous. Why is it the media's fault if people decide to believe them?

Did you not read my comment? I already answered this question: because it's the media that has trained us to believe assertions without evidence.

Comment It's the media's fault (Score 1) 21

The media regularly gives us stories without evidence, without substantiation, and asks us to believe those stories. Then -- I'm shocked! -- people end up believing stories without evidence or substantiation.

Only when we stop paying attention to source-less claims will we solve the problem of "fake news."

Comment Re:The rest of the story (Score 4, Insightful) 216

Their economy is going to take a hit.

It definitely will. But I'm not sure there was any other way around it.

India's corruption is legendary. You all but have to buy houses and other real estate on the black market, because the seller doesn't want to pay the taxes on a legitimate transaction. Which leads to a status quo of well-off families hoarding cash from illegal deals and essentially never paying taxes. There are other countries that are more corrupt, but these tend to be 3rd-world countries without a functioning government. Of any semi-developed country (or of nuclear powers, for that matter), India's economy is massively corrupt. Something had to be done.

Replacing bank notes in this fashion is undoubtedly the nuclear option. But the argument is (and I agree) that anything more gradual would have tipped off many people, who would have found ways to convert their cash to other forms in an effort to perpetuate the black economy. India will be in a lot of pain for the short term, but in the long term they will have a much stronger economy with proper funding for public services. They are never going to fully transition to a developed economy (and enjoy the benefits thereof) with that much corruption.

Slashdot Top Deals

Consider the postage stamp: its usefulness consists in the ability to stick to one thing till it gets there. -- Josh Billings

Working...