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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Trump on Sweden (Score 1) 408

My favorite is how Ami Horowitz calls Politifact out for "obviously" lying about who said only 500 immigrants in Sweden are working. Yeah. That's the lying media for you. Taking the falsehoods that one bigot said and another bigot agreed with, and accidentally attributing it to the second bigot. That's the real problem: misattribution. Never mind the fact that the entire premise of the "documentary" was complete BS, and the actual rape statistics from Sweden show rates going down during the height of the refugee crisis. Must be the Swedish deep state lying about everything!! But go ahead and keep watching Fox News, and believing everything they say, so long as it agrees with your worldview. That's what the president does, and it's working pretty great for him.

Comment Re:Failing, obviously (Score 2) 408

According to polls, he had about a 25% chance of winning the electoral college, if you can actually do math and understand how statistics work (HuffPo obviously didn't understand that). Fivethirtyeight pretty much nailed it; they predicted 4 possible scenarios that had equivalent odds of happening, and the one that occurred was one of them almost exactly.

Comment Re:Trump on Sweden (Score 1) 408

If the media or you wanna demonstrate that Trump's statements on this are false, ...

That's not how burden of proof works. Trump is the one claiming something happened, or is happening. It is up to him to provide evidence. Otherwise, the null hypothesis is that something did not happen, or is not happening. It is impossible to disprove something that doesn't exist. I can't prove there are no rainbow-colored elephants. But if you claimed there were, the burden of proof would be on you.

Comment Re:Echo-chamber fake news (Score 1) 408

Citation needed. I really don't believe that NYT or any other media outlet has been excessively harsh on the man. I listened to the entire Israel/US joint press conference the other day. I feel like it was portrayed in the media fairly, and in some cases too nice. Trump came off sounding like a buffoon and a charlatan, and his counterpart was a typical slippery politician. But even NPR and NYT went to spin it as if Trump and Netanyahu came up with some master plan that will finally bring peace to the middle east. Nevermind the fact that Trump refused to call on a single reporter from a traditional media outlet. That being said, I'm actually OK with the media portraying Trump as more competent than he really is. No matter who actually resides at 1600 Penn, I want the office of the President to be seen across the globe as a station of power, respect, and wisdom.

Comment Re:Off topic about the Ad (Score 1) 113

yeah... I still have ads enabled on this site because I want to support it, but the stapled to the top thing is stupid. It's the dimension that has the least real estate to spare, so knock it off already! The odd thing is that it's not consistent, and doesn't seem to stay stapled after a few scrolls up and down. Very odd.

Comment Re:Maybe people are oversaturated (Score 1) 129

You really think most Americans know that they are being sold to? Diamond rings, the latest iPhone, three cars per family, the list goes on and on. Americans are really good at one thing: buying whatever our corporate overlords tell us we can't live without. The common man even willingly takes part in the marketing, retweeting things, liking posts, etc.

It's not just things either. Look at policies that have been sold to us through the years: the mortgage interest deduction, unforgivable student debt, tipping, mandatory union dues, the war on drugs/terror. These were marketed as great ways to stimulate the economy or attain/protect the American Dream (TM). Most Americans don't realize how stupid it all is, and that they've been had by some very wealthy and powerful people. It goes all the way to the top. Officials are constantly trying to oversell their position. They sell their budget proposal or nominee or pet boogeyman, and the proletariat is supposed to lap it up. We have a president who does a Jedi mind trick, and somehow people are suddenly no longer interested in seeing his tax returns. Instead we get sold a line about the Lugenspresse (and holy shit the alt-right openly calls it that) making it up that Trump promised to release his returns if he became POTUS.

We get sold to all the time, and it is more nefarious than a few strategically placed web ads. I'd be perfectly content with a world where the only things people are trying to sell me are useful items I'd be interested in purchasing. Instead we have this hurricane of 24-7 BS coming from everywhere, and every marketer has an angle.

Comment Re:I grew up watching 6 million dollar man, (Score 1) 251

In the late 90s one of my EE professors was obsessed with neural networks. We thought him insane when he insisted they could be used for a security system, even though we couldn't make it work after two whole semesters. Now, I'm sure he must feel a little vindication that 20 years later machine learning depends on NNs to such an extent. Who knows what other "crazy" ideas my professors had that might actually prove prescient?

Comment Re:Pardon Manning and Snowden (Score 2) 384

Slightly off-topic, but you have an interesting point. People need to stop getting so butt hurt if they don't have any direct reason to be. The ultra-sensitive person you are referring to used to be what was meant by "SJW." People overreacting to a perceived injustice where none existed. For instance my brother gets offended when people use the word "waitress." That's just stupid; nobody cares. (Of course, he could have been feigning offense just to elicit laughs... not sure.)

In fact, sometimes the overreaction is more offensive than the actual original event. For instance, when Trump used the perfectly acceptable phrase "blood coming out of her eyes" to mean "very angry and agressive" (which I think comes from horned toads), he became unsure of his usage and changed it to "wherever." It was pretty clear he was just not sure what the correct idiom was, and didn't want to sound stupid for getting it wrong. Unfortunately, SJW's assumed he was talking about menstruation. Nobody (at least not any guy) was thinking that, until the press started saying it. I'll bet Trump was just as surprised as anybody at the interpretation they put on his words. While Trump said some pretty horrible things over the course of the campaign, this was clearly an overblown response by people trying to make him look bad. (before you accuse me of any sort of ideology, please go through my post history)

The problem is that right-wing nut jobs like my buddy now use "SJW" to refer to anybody who disagrees with him on a social issue, or sometimes as a mythical straw man. That has made people like me become averse to the pejorative sense of the abbreviation. In fact, since it has taken on the broader meaning of "not an asshole," I gladly embrace the label. I've even posted on Slashdot that people should strive to become warriors for social justice. It's sort of like the opposite of what happened to the word "hacker." It used to have a good connotation, and now it has a bad one.

Now there is a caveat. It's something that caught me rather by surprised. Apparently there is a sizeable portion of the population who "just roll with it" even though they are deeply offended. I'm not sure what to do about that. I'm about to go way off the rails, so bear with me. I heard a story about a lady who did studies on people who cat call. One of the reasons they continue doing it is because nobody -- literally nobody -- has ever told them they were offended by it. He considered himself to be paying them a compliment. Whereas the women interviewed in the study were afraid to confront the people catcalling because the majority of them thought that would lead to physical or sexual assault. How fucked up is that. You have two people, both of them making terribly wrong assumptions about the state of mind of the other person. Honestly, I don't know which one I find more offensive: that guys think cat-calling is a legit compliment, or that a majority of women think random Joe-on-the-street wants to rape them. Like I said, I'm off the rails... sorry.

I guess the upshot is that maybe SJW's feel like they see an injustice somebody else is unwilling to talk about. Maybe the best answer is to have an open conversation with people that share different world views. See if your $MINORITY$ friend really has a problem with $PERCEIVED_INJUSTICE$, then act accordingly.

Comment Re:Why "I" shouldn't trust Geek Squad? (Score 1) 389

You seem to misunderstand what "reasonable doubt" means. This case barely meets probably cause, if the article can be taken at face value. It wouldn't even meet a preponderance of the evidence standard for a civil case. In all criminal cases, reasonable doubt is the null hypothesis. The defendant doesn't have to prove it. It is up to the prosecution to prove *beyond* reasonable doubt that a crime was committed by the defendant. So what several jurisdictions have done instead, is passed laws where it is trivial to prove they have been broken. Define the law in such a way that guilt is always assured, you just have to find the right law to charge somebody under. I'm probably breaking seventeen laws just by posting this.

Slashdot Top Deals

"There... I've run rings 'round you logically" -- Monty Python's Flying Circus