Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Re: Why even have elections? (Score 1) 356

I am not at all convinced he is an idiot, (don't get me wrong most of the things that he says are stupid) he is at least a semi successful business man who has ripped of plenty of people. He has manipulated a significant portion of the population into supporting him, with his hate speech. You can't do that being a total moron. What I am convinced of is he only cares only about himself, it doesn't mater if you are a woman, man, Mexican, Arab, ... or a White middle class American, if it is in his best interest, he will screw you, given half the chance,

Comment Re: Why even have elections? (Score 1) 356

what there needs to be is the following options:

I don't like either, couldn't we find a better candidate in a country of 318 million people, but if must I chose X

If that option wins X gets put in a caretaker role while another election is started to find a better candidate.

Or alternatively a more practical solution (since I don't think you would ever find a candidate that wasn't useless)
simply rank your preferred candidates in order, if your top choice does not win your vote goes to the next option an so on.

That means your vote is never wasted by voting for a minor candidate.

Comment Re: Why even have elections? (Score 1) 356

The solution is not with person you elect, it is with checks and balances you place on those people, anyone can be corrupt. When you start down the corrupt path it only gets harder to stop. You have to use more corruption to cover up previous corruption, you are indebted to the people that helped you on your way. You start feeling entitled the benefits you got. Go give someone $100 a week for a while then take it away from them, they will upset, even though they are better off than they would of been without the money in the first place.

There needs to be a system that is transparent, that the politicians know that there actions will be revealed, even top secret stuff should have an expiry date.

There should be private funding of political campaigns at all, all that does is leave politicians indebted to there donors. The current system forces you to be indebted straight away. A political candidate should win on their ideas not on the size of their, or the people they ow favors to wallets. The usual argument to that is do you want to pay, and my answer is YES, because I am going to pay either way either directly or through laws that are designed benefit the donors. The latter is probably going to be much more expensive in the long run.

Comment Re: Why even have elections? (Score 1) 356

The future is uncertain, and yes it maybe worse, but in order to improve we must take risks, otherwise we will surely stagnate.

The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Hillary is a liar, and manipulative, but how is that different from any other politician.

However the same thing is probably better than electing a sociopath like Trump.

Comment They have a 100% accurate translation? (Score 1) 97

How do you get 100% accurate translation anyway? These things are up to interpretation, not all words have an exact translation, meaning is more important than the actual correct words. Language is ambiguous.

Also every error is not necessarily equal, some errors are irrelevant, while some are more important, e,g. the quick car, or the fast car, mean the same thing.

Comment Re:You keep using that word (Score 1) 285

The word would be popular not open. It is not even the most popular if you include mobile. But your argument seems to arguing which is more accessible. The word "open" has a very specific meaning here and he is trying to dilute it.

Linux is more accessible to developers, (no need to buy anything to write drivers), any develop can download it and write for free.
Linux is more accessible to IT and even users, it is free do download and install for anybody, windows is not. Since linux very popular for servers, which IT have more control over I would say IT think linux is more accessible.

Linux desktop will never catch on until it comes pre-loaded the computer and games run on it. The average user just doesn't care what OS is loaded, they can still run their applications. IT professional actually need advanced operating system functionality that is why they take the time to install Linux.

Comment Re:Can't even match Cygwin (Score 2) 163

Not by all accounts at all, there system is more like a VM that you can run linux in.

for example want to git, go apt-get install git great but if you want to use it outside of the shell install it again for windows.

cygwin I can run windows executables in it and cygwin executables from windows.

accessing the linux file system is a bit contrived from windows, some app data directory under the users directory I think

ping, sudo doesn't work (at least when I tried it)

For now I will stick to cygwin

Comment Re: As it should be (Score 1) 230

Maybe, maybe not, what I was saying is that it is not obvious that it is safer. The tests that are currently done are under limited conditions with human supervisors.

Having you seen the DARPA robotics challenge although impressive and more general purpose than self driving cars, they are still slow and prone to failure at tasks that humans find easy. It is not at all obvious that sticking one of these in front of the wheel will be safer.

This testing also only tests a particular software/hardware version, you are not including the possibility of a software update with a bug, killing thousands if not millions of people.

Comment Re: As it should be (Score 3, Insightful) 230

Robot may or may not be better, but to say humans are the worst drivers imaginable is a hyperbole. I suppose you let your dog drive because it is safer.

the population of the US is 318 million (I assume that 30,000 is in the US), that is 0.009% of people die, sure it could better. 13,322 people die from falls, given that walking is so much slower are we even worse at walking.

To me it is not apparent that less people will die, if robots drive, you need actual evidence and testing, not wild statements about how bad people are.driving you need use actual facts.

If I died every time my computer had a blue screen I would be dead a long time ago.

Comment Re: The Self Reward Syndrome (Score 1) 210

`In that case now we know all this. We shouldn't have an obesity epidemic right? We know much more about calorie intake and expenditure than we knew 100 years ago. We are all the right weight right?

The fact is that you can force the yourself to loose weight this way, but doing it permanently is extremely hard, your metabolism adapts and slows down to compensate, you cannot do exercise, or maintain a diet you don't like for the rest of your life. We naturally try to conserve energy.

We have been counting calories for at least 30 years now. What we have been doing is clearly not working for the vast majority of people, it is time we took a look at it and found a better way. My personal belief (although not scientifically proven) is we should be designing walk -able communities, that exercise is just a part of life. And making healthy food more convenient and satisfying. A salad may even be tasty but not after eating did I think I was full.

Slashdot Top Deals

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. - Voltaire