Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
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: This needs to stay (Score 1) 270

you're dumb enough to esteem the judgment of a guy who hired someone dumb enough to take money from foreign sources and not report it

Oh, you're referring to the guy THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION gave a security clearance to in 2016, following a review of his business dealings in Russia? That guy? One of the reasons he didn't get even more scrutiny while being considered for that job was the fact that the previous administration had just vetted him post Russian involvement and considered him worthy of an unsponsored security clearance. Which you know, but you're pretending you don't so you can spew your usual phony ad hominem. Thanks for tending so carefully to your ongoing hypocrisy display. Continue!

Comment Re:Host files? (Score 1) 85

I'm not sure if you're trying to meme or something, but the hosts file overrides how specific domain names get mapped to IP addresses. So as long as an app is trying to connect to a domain name (as opposed to directly to an IP address) you can easily reroute it elsewhere or outright break it.

Comment Re:So what's the issue? (Score 1) 209

So you're telling me that they should have owned the issue that they caused, and worked around it instead of putting the burden and blame on the customer? Why, that's like an airline unexpectedly needing 4 seats to get its employees to another airport on time, and thus putting them on a turboprop or in a company car instead of calling the cops to beat up the passenger who won't give up his seat!

Comment Re:European vacuum cleaners, regulatory consequenc (Score 1) 270

The "one" you refer to is more like "one half".

No, it is actually at least two -- state and federal -- and some people pay three (city). In two counties in Oregon, you are also paying a COUNTY gas tax. When I said "one tax", I meant "one kind of tax".

We haven't increased the tax in proportion to increase in price, it was a fixed amount, and we used to up in every couple years, until 1993.

You know, it is pretty easy to google this stuff and see that you are wrong. Oregon, for one, increased their tax rate in 2011, and according to the font of all knowledge, Wikipedia: "While most fuel taxes were initially levied as a fixed number of cents per gallon, as of 2016, nineteen states and District of Columbia have fuel taxes with rates that vary alongside changes in the price of fuel, the inflation rate, vehicle fuel-economy, or other factors." Portland added yet another hand to the pocket-dipping by creating their own gas tax that took effect on Jan 1 of this year. New Jersey increased their gas tax by 23 cents a gallon (not TO 23cpg, BY 23cpg) in 2016. No increases? Hmmmm....

And so we have crummy roads because few states have the ability to pay for them.

We have crummy roads because costs for road construction have skyrocketed and we have poor project management.

Even if you don't believe in science,

Pure flamebait.

Comment Re:It's a joke (Score 1) 270

The best I've seen were the "smart" power strips with timers and motion sensors and whatnot they went around installing without permission.

When did this happen? I've not seen anyone in my house doing that, nor have I seen any different power strips there.

If you mean "at work", then I am positive that they had all the permission they needed to do this: the owner of the company.

Comment Re:European vacuum cleaners, regulatory consequenc (Score 1) 270

Rather than set fuel efficiency targets, tax a vehicle's registration based on its fuel consumption. Lets people have the freedom to drive an old, less-efficient vehicle if they wish, as long as they are willing to pay for it.

In the US this is already taking place. It's called a "gasoline tax", and both the feds and the states have their hands in the pockets of those who buy gas. Buy more gas, you pay more in taxes.

You just want another tax to do the same thing, as if one tax isn't enough.

Comment Re:This needs to stay (Score 1, Informative) 270

It's one of the few things the EPA does that's useful and efficient. Setting a national standard is well within the things that government should do. Compared to all the really wasteful things they do this should certainly be kept.

Except it's the manufacturers that self-report their own idea of efficiency, essentially self-awarding themselves this meaningless label. You'll recall the famous experiment where someone sent in an Energy Star application featuring their design for a gasoline powered alarm clock. Which was of course granted Energy Star status, not only sight-unseen, but obviously without even a moment's critical thinking on the part of whatever bureaucratic clerk is holding the exact job that Trump very reasonably considers a waste of your taxes. If consumers want a real standard, they should embrace something the Underwriters Laboratories standard for safety. Privately run, and rigorous.

Comment Re:Is anyone falling for this? (Score 1) 117

Which part? Referencing Wolf Blitzer referring to a non-existent "Muslim ban?" Or MSNBC spending a day lying about how Rachel Maddow was going to "release Trump's taxes?" Typical liberal, you, carefully avoiding the topic and going for lazy ad hominem instead. Because you sure wouldn't want to address the points being made - that would require you to acknowledge that they refer to actual things that make your preferred narrative less truthy-feeling. Can't have that. No! I love how in a discussion about fake news, you're asserting that the person relaying simple (and verifiable by you) facts is virulently ignorant. Thanks for proving my point. Good to have your help.

Comment Re:Is anyone falling for this? (Score 2) 117

So you are unable to actually understand that a temporary immigration halt that impacts under 10% of Muslims in the world (only a tiny, tiny fraction of which would be looking to immigrate anyway) is ... something that it's not? Please explain how the current Muslim ban works. Details, please.

Comment Re:Is anyone falling for this? (Score 3, Insightful) 117

You are making up an alternative meaning for the phrase fake news.

Nah. It's well understood at this point to mean, "People using widely consumed platforms to spread information they know is incorrect, and doing so while presenting those lies as facts." So, when someone on CNN says there is a "Muslim ban," they know they're lying and that they're producing and spreading fake news. You know they are, their informed audience knows it's fake, and some small number of non-critical-thinking dolts take it as fact. But it's fake news. Click-bait factories in Eastern Europe are NOT the only or even a predominant source of this. Most of it comes right out of mainstream media habitats right in the US.

It is the easiest way to make money there.

It's true. When an operation like MSNBC spends an entire news cycle hyping the fact that their head fake-news-talking-head is going to "release Trump's taxes," when they know perfectly well they have no such thing and will do no such thing (except a readily available snipped that - even by itself - undermines their own narrative) ... when that happens, and they get a big ratings boost from that lie, yeah - easy money if they don't care about the fact they have to lie to do it.

Efforts to identify and remove fake news have no political intent


Comment Re:Why won't the drug dealers and criminals just (Score 1) 513

As a counterexample, see alcohol, and the prices thereof.

Alcohol is just another sin taxed and regulated like tobacco. It is not a counter-example, it is another example. The fact is, legalizing things doesn't remove them from criminal activity, and it doesn't remove the profit from producing them illegally.

No, it changes the part where they are robbing a bank because they need the money to buy stuff.

It doesn't change the part where bank robbers do it for the money to buy things they think they are owed by society. UBI will just be another thing they are owed, along with the large screen TV and nice car and whatever else, and banks won't be able to fire all the security guards.

Sometimes it's drugs (lots of crack addicts wind up robbing banks)

Geeze, I hope the people who design UBI systems don't accept the concept that "buying crack" is a need that has to be covered by UBI.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer