Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:Linux (Score 2) 170

"Linus share of the desktop has doubled in the last ~year to 2.2%. That's a nice jump."
Nice backhanded insult masquerading as a compliment, but entirely nonfactual.
Using a Windows centric website as a source for desktop market share is like asking a Met fan to rate the Dodgers.
One can pick any website that tracks the OS of visitors. Here's one:
According to the data on that webpage WIndows has a 39% market share and Linux has 47.2%

Or this site, which shows Linux at 5.6%

None of these take into account two factors: agent switching and multiple installs. I can set my browser to emulate IE running on Win7 (NT) even though I've been using Linux for 18 years.

Microsoft uses it sales channel to indicate total sales, which it has manipulated by including units setting in warehouses as well, in order to inflate their sales. They also used that trick when they reported total WinPhone sales, which are still in the toilet. When I download a Linux ISO from a website I can and have installed that single ISO on several computers. Those computers previously ran Windows. The tally of Windows sales does not decrease when I replace Windows with Linux, and no one knows for sure how many Linux ISOs have been downloaded and how many devices those downloaded ISO files have been installed on. So, market share is meaningless.

The "Year of Linux" was, for me, 1998. May 1st of that year was when I replaced Win95, an OS which I had to reinstall 5 times in the previous 4 months, with RH 5.0, which came with the book "Learn Linux in 24 Hours", by BIll Brush. My new Sony VAIO, which I thought was trash, ran faultlessly without a single crash until I replaced RH in September of that year with SuSE 5.3, because it featured KDE 1.0 Beta. I am now in my 7th year of running Kubuntu.

If you count Linux running on smartphones then the Linux smartphone marketshare is 87.4% and the WInPhone share is 0.4%

Until the SCOTUS destroyed software patents with its "Alice" ruling Microsoft made more money ($5+Billion) extorting smartphone makers who used Android, using bogus DOS patents, than they made selling their own smartphone.

Comment Re:We knew this going in (Score 5, Insightful) 558

Global warming will kill us, but, mass poverty will kill us sooner.

A) No, poverty won't kill us. Income inequity and the gutting of health, education and social services will kill some people—far too many, to be sure— but mostly it will reduce the quality of life for a generation or so. Undesirable? Yes. Deadly? Not for most people.

B) The reason for climate action today is not because it's going to affect us today. It's because every day of delay compounds the problem. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're the type of person who changes their oil regularly and sticks to the vehicle maintenance schedule, because ignoring things until they become critical is costly and stupid....

C) If I have to carry B)'s analogy any further, there's really no point in even responding.

Not everyone assumes Trump is unalloyed evil. But Breitbart, on the other hand, is deliberately indulging in the kind of corrupt, amoral behaviour you claim that Donald Trump needs to deal with as his first priority.

[editor's note: Here is where the poster loses his shit at the willful blindness of this defender of the indefensible.]

In layman's terms, they fucking lie and lie and lie about climate change, and you can't get that through your fucking head. Instead, you defend the very fucking liars you claim are ruining this globe by pooh-poohing the fact that they fucking lied and claiming that the thing they fucking lied about isn't that big a deal.

Here's the problem with that situation: If you're so fed up with political corruption, why the fuck are you defending the very people who are perpetuating the problem? And don't give me any 'but Hillary' shit. I don't give a flying fuck about Hillary. I don't care if she's the devil. I am specifically concerned that you, sir, are defending liars in your paean to the need to end a culture of corruption. Because I don't fucking get it.

Comment Hardly anyone trust the media (Score 1) 253

as a source of reliable news, and that probably applies to the socials as well, for obvious reasons, if you aren't a Leftist.

The so-called MNM was in the tank for Hillary during this election cycle:
The media dropped all appearances of journalistic standards and went ballistic in their attacks against Republican candidates, predicting that the final winner, Trump, had no chance of being elected. They started believing their own propaganda and it got echoed back and forth among the various news outlets. Hillary had a tough time filling a high school gymnasium and photos of her rallies were always up front and closely cropped, deliberately. Here is an example of but one of many:

Facebook, Twitter, Google and YouTube combined forces to censor "hate" speech on their sites. What they deemed hate speech became patently clear as we approached November 8th. Any posts against Hillary were shadow-baned, and if that didn't force repentance the account was suspended. If the account holder didn't conform to Leftist norms then the account was canceled. Google and Twitter did the same. Google CEO was even on Hillary's campaign team.
Here is a screen captures of an experiment testing Twitter's bias:
Guess who got banned.
Here is a similar experiment testing Facebook's bias:

Google was just as evil. When Google first set up YouTube they encouraged EVERYONE to create content and post it. They set up provisions for sharing ad revenue. Some YT posters became so successful they quit their jobs and became full time content creators for YouTube. Some of the content was political in nature. You guessed it. Videos which were not favorable to Hillary, or were favorable to Trump got demonetized, and sometimes the account was canceled, throwing the content creator out of a job. Those videos continued to make ad revenues but Google took it all. And they mock Trump's "You're Fired!", or his defunct "university". I suspect that Google has stolen more money from demonetized videos than Trump ever made from his short-lived university. Pure thievery.

During the debate Hillary was "horrified" that Trump would not say that he would accept the outcome of the election, so confident she was of her own election. She when on to describe his attitude as anti-democratic and UN-American. Then she lost the electoral count. Now, according to her own words, SHE is being anti-democratic and UN-American. She joined Jill Stein in the recount, but only in the states she had a narrow loss, not the states she narrowly won, probably fearing the truth of the Veritas video uncovering paid Democrat operatives bragging that they've been stuffing ballot boxes for "50 years" and they "won't **** stop now". Recounting a Chicago-style count would probably be hazardous to her popular vote totals. Here are Hillary's close counts:
Nevada by only 27K votes, Colorado by 75K, Minnesota by 44K and New Hampshire by only 3,000 votes.

So, despite the fact that both wings of the Democrat party ( the Far-Left Bernie and the Far-Left Hillary, they argued over who was more "progressive" and I call it a tie), the leadership of the Republican Party and many of its members and ALL of the Alt-Left Media, as listed in Podesta's email, were against Trump he still won by 37 electoral votes, a margin Hillary would have gladly accepted. The IRS's throttling of 501c applications, which doomed Conservative PACs in the last two elections wasn't effective in stopping Trump because he funded his campaign himself, and he spent a fraction of what Hillary spent.

In the 2008 election Chris Matthews had a "tingle" up his leg when Obama reached 270 electoral votes, the Electoral College being OK as long as the Left is winning, but when Trump crossed 270 he is "tingle" was probably urine. He wasn't alone. Here is a brief recap of the election:

Did the MNM learn anything? Sure. They've learned to double down on their bias and continue to masquerade their propaganda as news. They don't even believe themselves.

Comment Re: Will this apply to slashdot as well? (Score 1) 371

"I'm asking as an SJW looking for another crusade!"
Social Justice Warrior = code words for Marxist.

You remind me of the Chinese Red Guards of the 1960's & early 1970s. When Mao was finished with them he cut them off at the knees. They became China's "Lost Generation" and represent a constant social problem in that country because of the attitudes they developed during their "crusade". It is explained in this video:

IF America survives as a Republic under Constitutional Rule of Law, SJW's will be pains in everyone's backside because their college classes in [fill in current Left Wing collegiate studies buzz words here] will be totally worthless as a basis for EARNING a living. IF they get their wish and American becomes another Socialist hellhole [see Venezuela] they'll be gainfully employed spying on everyone else, much like 1/6th of East Germans did by spying for the Stasi [East Germany's Communist thugs]on the other 5/6ths of the population, as Merkel well knows.

Comment Re: Will this apply to slashdot as well? (Score 1) 371

"If anything government control over speech is what did immense damage in WW2. That and low educational standards at the time (actually standards in a sense were high but there was still a lot of discovery not widely spread, old beliefs lingering and so on). Common knowledge by the standards of the day was often corrupt simply because of the period in time."

You're dreaming. Most college graduates today could not pass the 1912 Eight grade graduation "Common Exam".
Nor could they pass a similar test today.

Comment Misquoted the American Bar Association (Score 1) 1055

The American Bar Association concluded:
"However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful.
Think about it. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object."

Assault and battery.
Two charges often mentioned in news and police reports. Assault is making threats of bodily harm against someone. Battery is actually harming someone, whether you threaten them or not. The 1st Amendment does not protect assault or battery, but "offending" someone's feelings is neither.

Making offending words illegal speech puts ammunition into the hands of unstable people, who are often exploited by those with a "politically correct" agenda for the purposes of speech, thought and political control. That's what Facebook, Google and YouTube have and are doing. The owners and managers of all three corporations were "in the tank" for Hillary Clinton, and used several methods to silence opposition against her, calling Conservative view points "hate" speech. Very convenient. YouTube, after years of encouraging people to create and post video content for a share of the ad revenue, turned on those with Conservative content and demonetized them. Those videos didn't just suddenly stop drawing ad money, but Google greedily keeping ALL the revenue for itself, destroying the livelihood of some who depended entirely on ad revenues for income. When deliberate detrending, shadow banning, or even altering the content of posts on Facebook or Twitter didn't stop the opposition to Hillary those corporations deleted the accounts of the "offenders". Very Orwellian of them.

The Public Commons was, in historical times, the place where citizens of a community gathered to discuss and debate issues of the day. Being a public place everyone had free access and freedom to say what they wished, aside from assault or battery. Facebook, Twitter and Google/YouTube all began supporting free speech but ended up turning to evil and placing limits on what people could say that went beyond prohibiting that which is already illegal. Some, especially those who own the corporations, and those on the Left whom the corporations represent more than any other part of the political spectrum claim that being private corporations they do not have to honor the 1st Amendment. I disagree. ALL of the Bill of Rights applies to ALL Americans no matter where they are on every square inch of this country, regardless of who owns the soil. According to current political dogma it is a violation of the 1st Amendment for a Christian baker to NOT bake a cake for a gay couple, but it is NOT a violation of the 1st Amendment for Facebook Twitter or YouTube to censor or ban Conservatives. Both businesses depend on consumers from "off the street". An example of their double standard can be seen in a Twitter experiment testing the fairness of Twitters application of the censorship rules:

In previous generations children were taught that "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me". The lesson was "toughen up, the world is a dangerous place. Words will hurt you emotionally ONLY if you let them." Today, Social Justice "Warriors" rampage across our nation attacking people and destroying property, but if confronted in public places where their identity is not hidden behind bandannas, hoodies or balaclavas masks they retreat to their academic "safe places" to be coddled by their Marxist mentors.

Comment "Social Media Is Killing Discourse..." (Score 1) 220

"Social Media Is Killing Discourse Because It's Too Much Like TV" ?

Don't think so. Faceboook, Twitter and Google murdered discourse by silencing opinion that disagreed with their agenda, which was to get Hillary elected as POTUS.

How "terms of service" abridge free speech ...
Professor Ammori tells us that Facebook lawyers have created “a set of rules that hundreds of employees can apply consistently without having to make judgment calls.”9 The details of these rules, however, we do not know. Unlike censorship decisions by government agencies, the process in the private world of social media is secret."

So, when Facebook, Twitter and Google collaborate to demonetize videos, while stealing their ad revenues, shadow ban posts, or outright delete accounts to censor non-Marxist views, Joe NoOne claims they became too much like TV? Like when MASH denigrated conservative views by having Frank Burns behave like an idiot, or Archie Bunker is portrayed as the typical representative of Conservatives, and Hollywood blacklists Conservative actors while claiming to be the victim of a blacklist? No, it's not like TV at all. Conservatives rarely had a voice in the Leftist Hollywood productions which flooded TV in the late 60's and onward. Facebook, Twitter and Google, while supposedly representing the public commons, puts a fence around it instead. That's why I canceled my accounts. I may not agree with someone's POV but everyone has the right to express them.

Comment Re:Doubleplusgood! (Score 1) 394

Said in every locker room every day. And not just in the guy's locker room - women are just the same when guys aren't around.

I say this with all the respect this statement deserves: Fuck you it is.

As someone who's spent more time in locker rooms than a lot of you, I have never once in my life heard someone bragging about forcing himself on women, and that 'they let you do it.' And you know what? Even if in some twisted world this actually is the reality, it's still fucking sick. It's describing criminal behaviour. Someone grabs any woman's pussy where I'm in a position to see it, they're going to be physically restrained until the cops come. Not kidding.

If you're cool with someone acting like a total asshole to someone else, then you need to check your attitude, because only an asshole would think that was alright. So fuck you, and fuck your normalisation of criminal behaviour. That's my sister, asshole.

Comment Re:Encrypt! (Score 2) 394

If you're sending anything important in plain text over the Internet these days, you're as good as asking the government to read it.

What a completely ------ thing to say to someone like -------! I can't figure out why people like you always ---- and ----- when you could be ---ing. Seriously, do you even ---- it? I for one trust out ----- over----s completely. Rule Brit------!!!

(and now I have to write a bunch of other useless prose to get by Slashdot's junk filters. Which is a really useless filter. I mean just because goatse ASCII is a thing doesn't mean no one ever had any legitimate uses for copious punctuation. My word, are we really reduced to such silliness? How much more of this do you think will be required before the filter finally lets this past? Probably a little more still. Hang on, let me preview.... Nope. still not enough. If this doesn't improve soon, I'm just going to load up a Tolstoy eBook and start pasting in sections of Anna Karenina, but then again that would probably just set off the plagiarism filter. Heathens have no appreciation for satire, I tell you.)

Comment Re:Crybabies (Score 4, Insightful) 524

The Russian Jews sent my still living uncle to a gulag back before WW2....

That's the strangest spelling for 'communist'[*] I've ever seen.

...we don't hate the jews, we just wish stupid people like you learned a bit more about history.

Why, because it would save you the trouble of learning actual history?

[*] Oh, OK, if I must: YES, there were Jews among the party apparatchiks at a couple of points in the Leninist/Stalinist period. They were trusted to varying degrees, but were subject to purges, too, depending on a number of factors, not the least of which was endemic anti-semitism among the Russian populace in general. But yes, some of them actually prospered under Stalin when millions of others were dying. This was not typically because of their Jewishness, but because they had other survival skills, some of which were less than admirable, this being Stalin's Russia and all. The Baltic states suffered terribly under the Soviets, but not because of The Jews.

Comment Re: Change the law (Score 1) 1429

True. The vast majority of counties voted red this election:
Even Illinois.

When the Framers designed the House based on popular vote they knew they had a problem. The states with the most population, i.e., the biggest cities, would control the results of each election. The states with few people wouldn't be fairly represented. So, they created a second body, the Senate, which has two members from each state, regardless of their population. By requiring a bill to be passed by both houses balance was brought to the process.

The same problem existed with regards to the presidential election based on the popular vote. The big cities would control who sets in the WhiteHouse. The EC is to the presidential election what the Senate is to legislation. It give a balance of power that would be absent if there was no EC. With no EC why would a candidate want to spend anytime in a state with a low population, like Kansas, Nebraska, North or South Dakota, etc...? The candidates would spend their time in the top metropolitan areas with a million or more residents. Each of the top five cities have more people than the entire state of Nebraska. Thirty nine percent of the total population voted this year, 125,000,000 people. The top 10 hold almost 30 million residents, which would be 24% of the total votes cast for in the presidential election this year if all of them voted. Forty eight percent, almost 112 million eligible voters didn't vote. What to doto improve the election process? Force people to vote. Have voters supply their Social Security number at the polls, which then submit the voter's name, address and SSN to the IRS on a signed form. People of voting age who don't vote get a citizenship "fee" (ACA is the precursor) added to their income tax. Make it equal to two days of their average wage. Annual income divided by 2080, the number of working hours in a year. If more than one voting form with the same SSN is submitted the a fraud investigation can ensue. Or, the same name and address on more than one form with different SSN numbers. Unassigned SSN's would trigger a fraud investigation.

What candidates do now is focus on the "swing" states. States where political power is somewhat equally divided and there is a sufficient number of EC votes at stake to swing an election: Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania. In the current situation Michigan has already recounted and Hillary gained a little over 500 votes, but Trump still had a 10,000 vote majority, so he keeps the 16 EC votes. Wisconsin has 10 and Pennsylvania has 20 EC votes. Even if the recount flipped both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania that would leave Hillary nine votes shy of 270. Hillary even made an campaign video ad pointing out Trump's response to Mike Wallace's question:

She has lost.
And, by refusing to accept the results of the election, she is guilty of what she accused Trump of doing: "Denigrating our democracy and downplaying how we've elected presidents for 240 years ... it's horrible".

By Federal law the recounts have to be completed by Dec 13th. The ONLY purpose for the recount demanded by Progressives now is as a blatant attempt to throw the election into the House, as was done in the 1824 election. The Progressives will deliberately drag their feet in the count process to ensure that. Trump will still win because the House is controlled by people he swept into power, but Progressives will use the Constitutional solution to the problem they caused to claim that Trump "stole" the election. THAT is denigrating and abusing our Constitution.

Because of Trump this election cycle revealed several previously denied or hidden things. First, the media is entirely controlled by Progressives, as is the entertainment and education industries, after years of infiltration. Secondly, many hidden Progressives threw off their Republican garments to reveal their true political alignment. They are called RINOs. If they weren't obvious before they are obvious now, and never to be trusted again. It is also very obvious that there are just two major political groups of people in the USA today: the Progressives and the Conservatives. All other groups and labels are meaningless.

The Progressives are against "that little book" and the freedoms its supplies. Obama weaponized several Federal agencies against Conservatives. Progressive's sustain a constant attacks on the several Amendment in the Bill of Rights with political correctness. They debase every debate with personal attacks, claiming to be "inclusive" but ostracizing any who do not bend their knee to their PC bullying. They would rather that America become a weak socialist state under UN control, as part of a growing Marxist world order. Their current intimidation tool are the "Social Justice Warriors", where "Social Justice" is just a code phrase for "Communist", as Bill Clinton revealed in a clip as part of the Democrat greeting from Howard Dean to the 2009 meeting of the Party of European Socialist.

The SJW behavior is identical to that of the Red Guard in China during Mao's "Cultural Revolution", and he cast the Red Guard aside just as callously as the Progressives will cast aside their SJW useful idiots when their purposes have been served. Where are all the Black problems occurring? In cities where Progressives have controlled the politics for decades. But, aren't Progressives supposed to be for helping Blacks? Then why are they killing each other in record numbers in Progressive strongholds like Chicago, Baltimore, Kansas City, etc...?

Slashdot Top Deals

Save yourself! Reboot in 5 seconds!