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:Pence Prevailed but... (Score 2) 157

I love all the outrage over Trump's 80's-esque jock-talk. Tell me, where was it when Bill Clinton was accused of rape (an accusation that's never been rescinded)?

Where was your pious outrage then? Where was it during Bill's numerous known infidelities, in which he evidently abused his power to ensure sexual favors from women serving beneath him? As I recall, the sentiment back then was, "yeah, it's bad personally, but basically irrelevant to the execution of his position."

Yes, Hillary is running, not Bill, but let's be frank: Hillary leveraged Bill's popularity and connectivity to secure her nomination, and she's relying on -- and reinforcing -- the notion that her presidency will essentially be an extension of Bill's. Bill Clinton is absolutely instrumental to Hillary's candidacy, so to ignore his skeletons while embracing Trump's roughly equivalent (if even that) skeletons, is to engage in abject hypocrisy.

The funny thing is, there are so many nails that should have been the final one for Trump's candidacy, but the willful bias and hypocrisy on display by people like you just keeps resurrecting it. The prospects of a Trump presidency are lamentable to put it lightly, but it's easy to see how those issues are swept aside when a circus of sanctimony is the favored criticism.

If Trump is elected, he'll have people like you to thank.

Comment Re:Pence Prevailed but... (Score 1) 157

Guess those third-party and independent candidates don't count, huh?

Vote for whomever you actually like. If you want Clinton, vote Clinton. If you want Trump, vote Trump. If you want Johnson, vote Johnson. If you want Stein, vote Stein. If you want somebody else, vote for somebody else. Just don't buy into the lesser of two evils bullshit, because that's exactly how we arrived at this situation.

Comment Re:Pence Prevailed but... (Score 1) 157

Well, since you asked:

How about this email in which the DNC national press secretary, Mark Paustenbach, sought alterations to an unflattering Hillary article that was sent to him before release? Clinton's spokesman, Josh Schwerin, successfully pushed back on that piece, by the way, rewording how funds raised were to be distributed so as to diminish the poor state-level distribution.

Or how about this email, which showed the DNC deputy communications director, Christina Freundlich, seeking approval to fraudulently solicit, on behalf of the the Trump campaign, women who would be willing to endure abject objectification in order to paint Trump as a sexist? The DNC communications director, Luis Miranda, approved that strategy, by the way.

Or how about this email, which shows the DNC chief financial officer, Brad Marshall, proposing to smear Sanders on the basis of his religious beliefs?

I know your objection will be that those all pertain to people surrounding Hillary, not Hillary herself. To that, I'd question whether you really believe that high-level representatives in the DNC, such as Wasserman-Schultz, were able to transition to the Clinton campaign just because Clinton admired their, umm, "talents." I'd also suggest that, if you believe that, you should also believe that Trump never endorsed segregated housing practices when the rest of his real-estate business was under investigation for civil rights abuses. After all, there's nothing personally tying him to that practice, right?

If there's anything to be said about Hillary, it's that she's very careful, and I doubt that she was careless enough to leave anything overly-suspicious pointing to anyone but a patsy. Believe what you will, I guess, but the evidence points to an organization that is pretty obviously corrupt, and that corruption is all in the support of one person. I highly doubt that that's just because they really, really like Hillary.

Comment Re:Seriously. (Score 1) 104

Somewhat off-topic from the main article, but to your point about bike lights, I've used both lights powered by a generator, and battery-powered lights.

Unless you're in a high-level bike race (where you wouldn't have lights to being with), you're not going to notice any additional drag from a generator -- at least, not with the method my generator uses. It's not like it comes into direct contact with the wheel or anything; it just uses the circulation of permanent magnets around the center hub of the front wheel, which doesn't produce drag noticeable beyond regular road noise. That said, it's not as bright as good battery-powered lights. Note that, when I say good, I don't mean a Wal-Mart light that just uses AAs; I'm talking about a rechargeable light that puts out a lot of light. This should also address your concern of battery replacement, since you really don't need to do that with such lights.

Comment Re:Poland Builds a Solar-Powered Bike Path That Gl (Score 2) 104

This isn't a replacement for a bike light any more than street lamps are a replacement for car headlights; it's there to augment night vision, that's all.

I've got a good headlight for my bike, and I use it at night all the time, but it still has its limitations. Have you never come across something, like a stray branch or random hunk of metal, when you're biking at night? These things are often dark, not particularly reflective, and laying on a dark surface, so they're easy to miss until you're basically running over them, even with a bright headlight to light the way ahead. Having a dull backlight that exposes these things due to occlusion of that light would, for me at least, be very helpful.

I'd also note that this applies to people walking on bike paths at night as well. Speaking personally, I've actually run into someone on an unlit bike path (I was almost able to slam on the brakes in time, so it wasn't major) because I didn't see them -- dressed all in black, no less -- until I was right on top of them. Why didn't I see them? Because there was no ambient light, and the path was curving at that point, so my headlight, being fairly directional, wasn't able to shine directly on them until I was right on top of them. Incidentally, a glowing path would be useful for exposing turns on unfamiliar paths as well.

So, yeah, I've got a good headlight, but I've experienced its limitations, and can see how Poland's solution would address those limitations without costing a bunch in infrastructure, without requiring external power generation, and without introducing overly-bright lights lining bike paths. Assuming that this isn't some environmental catastrophe (I'm assuming it's no better or worse than highway paint), I think this is a pretty good idea.

Comment Re:Poland Builds a Solar-Powered Bike Path That Gl (Score 3, Insightful) 104

It's not a dumb idea, nor is it particularly bright (in the literal sense ;) ).

The path isn't comprised of a bunch of LEDs, it's basically coated with a durable glow-in-the-dark paint. That's a low-intensity light that won't be blinding by any stretch, and is actually a pretty good idea. As someone who actually rides at night (I commute ~2,500 miles/year on my bike), I'd welcome something like this as it'd be just bright enough to expose things, like branches or people walking in dark clothing, in the path before you're right up on them. Moreover, I'd welcome this over using street lamps to light the paths I take that are currently unlit, since, as I mentioned, this would entail more of a dull glow than a harsh light.

Also, your solution is to use the moon? I take it that there's always a full moon and clear skies where you are?

Comment Re:More blue light? (Score 4, Insightful) 104

This is basically a durable glow-in-the-dark paint, not a bunch of LEDs. If you look at that first photo from the article (where the path appears to glow somewhat brightly), you'll noticed that it was taken with a bit of a long exposure (also why the sunset seems so bright). While I'm sure the paths will be quite visible at night, I hardly think that they'll approach anywhere near the magnitude of LEDs. In other words, I highly doubt that this will have much of an impact on the populace's nighttime response, though it'll probably confuse some insects or something.

Comment Re:So that's where the trolls came from? (Score 2) 657

Your point really bears repeating. I don't know how people can be so willing to just dismiss what a candidate says they'll do. I mean, saying that all politicians make meaningless campaign statements, though true some of the time, ignores the many, many campaign statements that, once elected, politicians actually follow through on. In fact, the majority of campaign statements made by politicians actually do manifest in some form or another.

Of course, I can already hear the, "Trump isn't a politician," sentiments. Fine. To those to whom that applies, if you prefer to ignore actual campaign statements under the assumption that, really, Trump is a decent guy who'll just do whatever the right thing is (or at least, less wrong than Hillary), I'm sure he'll happily sell you exclusive real estate too.

Comment Re:Tech Company arrogance. (Score 1) 161

The human body is something that needs to be discovered

We are explorers in the further regions of experience...

Sorry was just reminded of Pinhead (perhaps not the misinterpretation you anticipated). I agree with the other points you were actually making, though; there's a bit much hubris on display.

Comment Re:A modular PC? That's an amazing new idea... (Score 1) 78

How many office workers in a typical corporate setting do you see digging into their computer case?

You're not the customer that matters here because, while I'm sure they'd happily sell you one of their sleek new desktops, you don't represent the corporate-oriented target market.

Comment Re:Prepare to be (Score 1) 532

Umm, the earth is not flat, geocentrism is wrong, and spacetime is not always flat. All of these (that last one representing Newtonian gravity, by the way) were considered basic natural laws at some point until they were shown to merely approximate reality.

Now, you can argue for the validity of using those approximations in specific circumstances, but the fact remains that those are now known to be approximations, not laws. If, for example, you're going from one house to another in your neighborhood, a flat-earth approximation makes sense. If, however, you're building a suspension bridge to span a couple kilometers, you need to know that the earth is actually curved.

When you go from the flat-earth, to spherical (ish) earth realization, that's a discovery, just as the GP pointed out. That discovery can only come at the expense of the prior "law," though, which must necessarily be broken.

Slashdot Top Deals

In seeking the unattainable, simplicity only gets in the way. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982