Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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:Buried the lede (Score 1) 6

Your third-from-last word is their new dog whistle, though. He just needs to remind the GOP that his new efforts will work to discredit Obama and they'll sign off on whatever he wants. If he said that he wanted to raise taxes on the top 1% to fund a Trump moon base to assert American dominance in the wake of the Obama Administration the GOP congress-critters would trip over each other to be the first to cast their votes in favor.

Comment Re:I don't know what Slashdot thinks about her... (Score 2) 429

Look at the conservative voice being bolstered by the Slashdot conservative majority after launching into an attack on me. Just because I pointed out the Ms. Wu has approval on Slashdot roughly equal to that of the Ebola virus doesn't mean I agree with everything she says.

The double standard in effect here is also telling. The POTUS says all kinds of stupid shit on Twitter, at least weekly. Yet he is not held to everything he posts there but Slashdot readers are on a roll attacking this person who wants to run for congress over this tweet. The fact that she is even aware of the amount of damage something dropped from space could do suggests she likely has a better grasp on physics than our POTUS, even if her tweet did not show a good understanding of the matter of launching something from the surface of the Moon.

And your claim of her saying that someone would just "throw" the rock is supported by what? Yeah, nothing. But go ahead and insert whatever you want into the argument, you'll win this one by majority vote alone (as you've already seen). Slashdot will happily bash her at any opportunity while praising the GOP in the same breath regardless of which one shows a better understanding of physical reality.

Comment I don't know what Slashdot thinks about her... (Score 0) 429

OK, we get that Slashdot hates Brianna Wu. We know that there are few harsher adjectives around here than the dreaded "Social Justice Warrior". We get that compared to the Slashdot voice, Brianna is a Communist (although compared to the Slashdot voice, Ronald Reagan is one, too).

What makes this front page entry a disappointment though is how far it wandered from reality just to attack one person. All that is being discussed here is the possibility of a kinetic weapon - which has had an entry on wikipedia for over a decade. Wu's statement was then twisted to be used as an attack against her.

And seriously, what does Slashdot have to gain by attacking her, anyways? She wants to represent Massachusetts. Most of Slashdot would see the majority of the voting public in Massachusetts to be total Communists regardless, and if Wu doesn't get the nomination some other person of similar political persuasion will.

Comment It's part of the race to the bottom (Score 1) 218

Subway is the cheapest lunch you can get in many markets - often cheaper than McDonald's on a calories-per-dollar metric. Soy is cheap volume filler and salt makes the flavor more apparent while doubling as an exceptionally cheap preservative. Corporate is doing everything they can to pay their employees as little as possible - while taking as much as possible from the franchisees - and they found this is another way to improve the margin.

After all they didn't surpass the expansion rate of McDonald's by relentlessly pursuing quality or the propagation of a healthy product.

Comment Re:Buried the lede (Score 1) 6

Worth noting that we have also gone back to dissent being dangerous, "Un-American", and dangerously "Un-American". In other words we're back to 2002, only we have an even bigger idiot in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania and the people working the levers of power are even more drunk on power juice and empty rhetoric. If only the opposition had a spine we might be able to save our democracy, though at this point we might all find ourselves with front row seats to the inferno instead.

I heard it was a nice experiment while it lasted.
User Journal

Journal Journal: POTUS Emeritus Alfred E Neuman on Trump 6

Bush's comments came after a prominent Republican in Congress, Rep. Darrell Issa of California, called for a special prosecutor to investigate whether Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and was in touch with Trump's top advisers during the campaign.

Bush said he would trust Senate Intelligence panel Chairman Richard Burr to decide if a special prosecutor is necessary.

Comment Re:How about traveling without? (Score 1) 144

Your reply wandered so much that it's rather difficult to tell if you even had a plan for it. I'll take the most coherent parts of it and try to reply to them:

Yes, you can, especially if you're only vaguely on social networks. But we shouldn't have to jump through hoops like this

If you are so married to your online existence that you consider leaving your laptop behind to be "jumping through hoops" then you probably couldn't be helped by any amount of anything here. Fortunately for you people who are at that level of dependency seldom notice when they are more than 10 miles from their home - as they almost never look away from their screens anyways - so traveling doesn't really matter. As the majority of slashdot readers are far more than 10 miles from an international border, it is reasonable to expect that you wouldn't be a likely candidate to wander far.

when you're visiting friends and whatever while travelling, guess what, social networks are very useful in that case

First of all, if you are visiting other people, that should be your social network, right there. Why do you need to worry about other people at that time? You're taking your attention away from the people who actually cared enough about you to spend time with you in the real world.

Second, if you are visiting people who you interact with in your online social networks, you probably haven't gone some place where you need to worry about a travel mode for your devices; likely you haven't gone more than 10 miles from your home.

Do you think it stops at social networks? Should you leave your phone completely?

Do you really think the two are equivalent in levels of importance?

Social networks today, your phone call history tomorrow? Is that OK?

There are nations that for years have checked visitors' phones at customs. In case you didn't know this before, US laws don't travel with you when you enter another country - you enter another country and you are now expected to adhere to their laws. If you don't like their laws you should have traveled elsewhere.

You can do this at the moment. Then tomorrow when they start doing automatic searches based on your name, and show you an account they've found that looks like you and has your name, what then?

What are you talking about? This is quite a bit removed from the topic at hand. If you're worried that a foreign nation is going to ask you to log in to a social media account, then you've made yourself a slave to social media. I'm guessing you don't leave home often with that attitude, though so you're probably just fine with that.

Comment How about traveling without? (Score 3) 144

Really, traveling without social media is a very pleasant option in most cases. My most memorable vacations are the ones I took where I was not worried about WiFi or 3G service. Your vacation should get you away from what consumes you during the rest of your existence; if you are worrying about that crap while you are away I'm going to tell you that your doing your vacation wrong.

Comment G+, the only lower-volume network than slashdot (Score 1) 1

I'm quite active on G+. However I find the only way to get in a discussion with other people is to start in a discussion started by the account of someone who is vastly better known in public than myself. Even then, the discussions don't tend to last long. When I post things publicly in my own name I get a few comments from people I know and that's generally about it. In my circles is one person who works for Google, and when he posts he doesn't tend to get a ton of replies either.

I guess if I joined more groups on there, and then posted to them, I might see more volume. The problem with that though is then you are usually just posting to people who already agree with you, which isn't that terribly useful.

Comment Re:About (Score 1) 8

Probably about three or four hundred pages.

Well, according to the wikipedia page it was supposed to be 320 pages. I was just surprised that there was apparently a large amount of interest in a page when all that was known about it was the title, length, and author.

It is suggested on the wikipedia page about the author that the book may have been intended to be autobiographical. I guess that means it belongs in the fiction category then...

Comment Re:What it's about? Simple. (Score 1) 8

I don't have any reason to contest that, but do you have any sources to back it up? If that was the entire subject matter of it, then why would so many conservatives rush out to pre-order it? Even as much energy as the GOP has put in to attacking and suppressing anyone who is not straight, white, male, and Christian, this doesn't seem like a topic that a lot of their base would want to put energy into reading up on.

Or were they just buying it to put on their bookshelves next to the latest books from Coulter, Limbaugh, and the likes? Or were the pre-orders actually coming from PACs and other similar entities that were out to amplify the message for some reason?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." -- Bernard Berenson