Certainly you jest. A takeover requires a change in leadership or direction. If anything was taken over, it was the government finally being taken over completely by the insurance industry. The ones who came out better from the transaction were the insurance companies, not the public or the government (well, excluding the politicians who received even more fantastic campaign contributions from their masters in reward, that is).
You're clueless if you don't think there aren't big players in TPP.
Did you mean "clueless if you don't think there are big players in TPP"? Because I certainly don't think there are no big players in TPP. The big thing though is that those players don't own as much of Washington as the insurance industry owns, which is why it is moving slightly slower.
If so, why do you expect to keep your job? Windows boxes that old should not be exposed to the world, especially if they are doing something important for the business.
Once the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 - also known as "Obamacare" - passed and was signed in to law, the floodgates were officially open. Now every other industry is trying to play catch up and get as large of a handout from the federal government.
They may need to spend a little more money to get that kind of clout, though. The companies that stand to benefit the most from TPP don't own as much of congress as the insurance industry. Thankfully for them, though, they aren't competing with the insurance industry for anything on this matter.
I would rather we end up with fewer losses than expected, than more. We learned something from this problem, and the cost was not as bad as it would have been had the error been in the other direction.
Are you new here (I see by your huge UID that you almost certainly are)? Slashdot was on the decline well before either of those. However they likely won't end up on this list as they are by most understandings of the term too seasoned to be called a "startup".
There are plenty of groups that had vested interest in killing socio-economic mobility, but colleges weren't really one of them. While the colleges and universities in our country have plenty of faults to them, it is not their fault if students decide to major in philosophy and leave without good job prospects. What did this guy expect to find for employment?
Maybe schools should require some kind of basic course to familiarize kids with real guns, so they don't grow up into these principals who can't tell the difference.
How far away was the guy in the costume from the principal's office? I'm not familiar with that school district but most public schools I attended were set back quite a ways from the road and sidewalk. If the blaster was black plastic, would you be able to distinguish it from a real gun from 100 feet away?
I've dealt with cable companies, who are generally epically incompetent. I also had the misfortune of dealing with an impound lot, where every employee top-to-bottom was simply evil. I'd prefer a week in the offices of the cable company over a minute in the front room of an impound lot.
And he's actually one of the less-hard-line-right-wing "editors" here. I usually expect blatantly conservative front page drivel from "failure machine" samzenpus.
I thought Script Kiddies were defined as being people who ran scripts they downloaded off the internet that were already made for their purposes. The summary suggests this person wrote their own software. You could claim it is derived from other software, or perhaps even just a pipelined bundle of existing software, but it still sounds like it is a bit beyond just running a script.
On the front page of any site, other than to get conservatives excited about someone they can bash? Besides, the conservative majority here already knows that Chaffee is not one of them, they would have seen his name and jumped in to tell us what a terrible evil person he is without needing the lead-in in the summary.
What positive "News for Nerds" are we supposed to report, again?
If the site was as left-leaning as you claim it to be, they certainly could have come up with something. Instead every week there is another story on the front page telling us how evil the Obama administration is. In the same breath every week there is at least one story piling admiration on the conservative movement in one way or another.
If this site is somehow not pandering to the conservatives, it is doing an epically shitty job of it. There is a laundry list of evidence of conservative editorial bias here, and no extant evidence of liberal bias here. Just because seeing someone like me dare to point out that slashdot leans hard to the right is enough to enrage you doesn't mean that this site somehow magically is not a conservative echo chamber. Hell there are even a couple of liberals who manage to post comments in fox news articles. It shouldn't surprise you that there would be at least one non-conservative who would post comments here on slashdot as well.
And before you reach for the "news for nerds" cover, tell me how this story is tech oriented? There have been plenty of other blatantly political articles that have made the front page as well with no purpose other than to excite the slashdot conservative base.
Shit. Did I miss the memo that today was opposite day?
Well, what you wrote after that certainly suggests that you do believe today to be opposite day:
For the last few years, Slashdot has been running slightly to the left of Mao. Around here, conservatives are all but extinct, and libertarians are endangered. Republicans are routinely mocked and vilified. Scroll through the comments on this story and you'll see plenty of clever new ways to say "This Republican is vile, but..."
Take a look at the front page. Tell me how many stories have made the front page in the past 6-10 years that have been favorable to democrats. Now tell me how many stories on the front page have been favorable to republicans. The ratio of the latter over the former is at least 8 to 1. Every week we see at least one softball - such as this one - that is picked to make republicans either look good or to make them look like innocent victims of the evil democrats.
And I don't know what discussions you imagine yourself reading, but by comment volume slashdot also leans heavily to the right. I have seen that for several years as well. It likely began with the nationalisitic hysteria that came in the wake of 9/11 - back when it was nearly a crime to even dare question the Bush administration - but here it never really let up.
I remember not so long ago when, apparently, this site was so pro-Obama that people couldn't stand it.
I recall an article on Obama winning the election back in 2008. That was the last time a pro-Obama article made the front page of slashdot. Since then it has been a regular parade of how evil he - and everyone in his administration - is.
And then there's cases like this guy right here, who seem to believe it only exists to bash Obama and his party.
Well, it also exists to occasionally share 24-hour-old tech news. Mostly, though, the discussions here inevitably turn in to conservative echo chambers.
Ever think that maybe you people are just nuts and need to stop whining when your party is on the bad side of a story?
Did you notice that I was just answering a question? Someone asked why this was on the front page of a "news for nerds" site. I told them why.
Because it was written to make the democrats look like evil power-grabbing evil evil evil evil-doers.
Hastert is a Republican.
Exactly my point. Hastert is a Republican, and the story is painting him as the victim of government overreach. If Hastert was a Democrat this article never would have made the front page - though an article postulating that "progressives" are inclined to partake in NAMBLA-like activities would.
Because it was written to make the democrats look like evil power-grabbing evil evil evil evil-doers. Also, it is potentially good fodder for Rand Paul's presidential campaign, and it makes democrats look evil. Those are all popular causes here.
sorry. that first line should read "since when did constitutionalist meanfascist???
It doesn't. However Rand is not a strict constitutionalist.
Rand is for going back and following the constitution, which means following the 10th amendment. which means if its not explicit in the constitution, its a states right
He advocates that inconsistently. He wants to obey the constitution when it fits his ends. Other times he doesn't give a damn about it. He is no less hypocritical on his interpretation of the constitution than most other politicians, he just makes a bigger deal about it and fewer people are willing to call him out on it. Being as slashdot in particular is overrun with members of Rand's father's cult, he has nearly a guaranteed friendly audience here.
please, if you think rand is a fascist, id LOVE to hear who you want to be elected who would actually follow the constitution, and remove the federal government from my life.
Try reading the full constitution before attempting to lecture on its contents. Then go find an actual definition of fascism before pretending that Rand is not one. Then come back and we can try this discussion again.
Please rephrase your anger in the form of a question in written English so I can respond to it.
wanting to let the 50 states decide, instead of the 1 federal government
I have not seen a single proposal from them that moved decision making from the federal government to the states that would be able to enhance personal liberty across the board. I have seen plenty from each of them that would enhance liberty for the most elite economic echelon at the expense of the rest, but that again is only enhancing the power structure.
they want literally the exact opposite of what you claim they do
You could reach that conclusion only by not paying attention to anything they have proposed, ever.
fascism would mean bigger federal government (as you said, centralizing power)
Wrong. Fascism does not require a bigger federal government, in fact a larger government is generally the opposite of fascism. Fascism requires more power in the hands of fewer people. There are many ways to de-centralize power - including growing the federal government. Centralizing power - such as aspiring to the "government you can drown in a bathtub" principle - is a giant step towards fascism.
And more power in the hands of fewer people - at the expense of the rest - is a fundamental characteristic of what both Ron and Rand support.
if you are gonna make a statement, at least have SOMETHING to back it up
Pretty much everything either of them have ever supported supports my statement of them being fascists - particularly if you use a definition of fascism that makes sense rather than just one that is used as a generic label and put-down for anyone who you disagree with.
Wow, I'm sorry I have insulted you to such a degree that you feel justified in using profanities.
I challenge you to think about the meaning of fascism, here. Fascism refers to the extreme concentration of power in the hands of very few people. Indeed the Patriot Act could qualify along those lines, and I am no fan of it.
However, the Ron Paul cult has been champions of fascism for a long time. The cult has favored restructuring power in many ways to exclude many people. Rand Paul fighting the Patriot Act renewal is just window dressing to encourage people to not pay attention to their driving motivations.
So he did one thing you agree with. The rest of his profile is just bat shit crazy.
"Revolution" was a term that was popular with the cult that Rand's father Ron ran for many years. The fact that we see it used here suggests that Rand is becoming even more popular with those cult members, some of whom felt Rand was drifting philosophically too far away from his father. In the end Rand Paul is just another fascist conservative running under the "libertarian" banner even though his notion of liberty is quite twisted.
Slashdot Mirror
the time Windows 95 was introduced, in 1995.
In case we thought that the 95 stood for something else.
I thought it was a takeover?
Certainly you jest. A takeover requires a change in leadership or direction. If anything was taken over, it was the government finally being taken over completely by the insurance industry. The ones who came out better from the transaction were the insurance companies, not the public or the government (well, excluding the politicians who received even more fantastic campaign contributions from their masters in reward, that is).
You're clueless if you don't think there aren't big players in TPP.
Did you mean "clueless if you don't think there are big players in TPP"? Because I certainly don't think there are no big players in TPP. The big thing though is that those players don't own as much of Washington as the insurance industry owns, which is why it is moving slightly slower.
If so, why do you expect to keep your job? Windows boxes that old should not be exposed to the world, especially if they are doing something important for the business.
Once the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 - also known as "Obamacare" - passed and was signed in to law, the floodgates were officially open. Now every other industry is trying to play catch up and get as large of a handout from the federal government.
They may need to spend a little more money to get that kind of clout, though. The companies that stand to benefit the most from TPP don't own as much of congress as the insurance industry. Thankfully for them, though, they aren't competing with the insurance industry for anything on this matter.
I would rather we end up with fewer losses than expected, than more. We learned something from this problem, and the cost was not as bad as it would have been had the error been in the other direction.
where will the founder explain how it died?
I'm curious to see how /. explains how it died.
Four letter words: "Beta". Or "Dice".
Are you new here (I see by your huge UID that you almost certainly are)? Slashdot was on the decline well before either of those. However they likely won't end up on this list as they are by most understandings of the term too seasoned to be called a "startup".
There are plenty of groups that had vested interest in killing socio-economic mobility, but colleges weren't really one of them. While the colleges and universities in our country have plenty of faults to them, it is not their fault if students decide to major in philosophy and leave without good job prospects. What did this guy expect to find for employment?
Maybe schools should require some kind of basic course to familiarize kids with real guns, so they don't grow up into these principals who can't tell the difference.
How far away was the guy in the costume from the principal's office? I'm not familiar with that school district but most public schools I attended were set back quite a ways from the road and sidewalk. If the blaster was black plastic, would you be able to distinguish it from a real gun from 100 feet away?
I've dealt with cable companies, who are generally epically incompetent. I also had the misfortune of dealing with an impound lot, where every employee top-to-bottom was simply evil. I'd prefer a week in the offices of the cable company over a minute in the front room of an impound lot.
Unfortunately, it's timothy.
And he's actually one of the less-hard-line-right-wing "editors" here. I usually expect blatantly conservative front page drivel from "failure machine" samzenpus.
I thought Script Kiddies were defined as being people who ran scripts they downloaded off the internet that were already made for their purposes. The summary suggests this person wrote their own software. You could claim it is derived from other software, or perhaps even just a pipelined bundle of existing software, but it still sounds like it is a bit beyond just running a script.
unfortunately it's Lincoln Chaffee
On the front page of any site, other than to get conservatives excited about someone they can bash? Besides, the conservative majority here already knows that Chaffee is not one of them, they would have seen his name and jumped in to tell us what a terrible evil person he is without needing the lead-in in the summary.
What positive "News for Nerds" are we supposed to report, again?
If the site was as left-leaning as you claim it to be, they certainly could have come up with something. Instead every week there is another story on the front page telling us how evil the Obama administration is. In the same breath every week there is at least one story piling admiration on the conservative movement in one way or another.
If this site is somehow not pandering to the conservatives, it is doing an epically shitty job of it. There is a laundry list of evidence of conservative editorial bias here, and no extant evidence of liberal bias here. Just because seeing someone like me dare to point out that slashdot leans hard to the right is enough to enrage you doesn't mean that this site somehow magically is not a conservative echo chamber. Hell there are even a couple of liberals who manage to post comments in fox news articles. It shouldn't surprise you that there would be at least one non-conservative who would post comments here on slashdot as well.
And before you reach for the "news for nerds" cover, tell me how this story is tech oriented? There have been plenty of other blatantly political articles that have made the front page as well with no purpose other than to excite the slashdot conservative base.
These strange creatures who claim Slashdot is right-wing amuse me.
Do you always find reality and statistics amusing or only when it challenges your political beliefs?
Shit. Did I miss the memo that today was opposite day?
Well, what you wrote after that certainly suggests that you do believe today to be opposite day:
For the last few years, Slashdot has been running slightly to the left of Mao. Around here, conservatives are all but extinct, and libertarians are endangered. Republicans are routinely mocked and vilified. Scroll through the comments on this story and you'll see plenty of clever new ways to say "This Republican is vile, but..."
Take a look at the front page. Tell me how many stories have made the front page in the past 6-10 years that have been favorable to democrats. Now tell me how many stories on the front page have been favorable to republicans. The ratio of the latter over the former is at least 8 to 1. Every week we see at least one softball - such as this one - that is picked to make republicans either look good or to make them look like innocent victims of the evil democrats.
And I don't know what discussions you imagine yourself reading, but by comment volume slashdot also leans heavily to the right. I have seen that for several years as well. It likely began with the nationalisitic hysteria that came in the wake of 9/11 - back when it was nearly a crime to even dare question the Bush administration - but here it never really let up.
I remember not so long ago when, apparently, this site was so pro-Obama that people couldn't stand it.
I recall an article on Obama winning the election back in 2008. That was the last time a pro-Obama article made the front page of slashdot. Since then it has been a regular parade of how evil he - and everyone in his administration - is.
And then there's cases like this guy right here, who seem to believe it only exists to bash Obama and his party.
Well, it also exists to occasionally share 24-hour-old tech news. Mostly, though, the discussions here inevitably turn in to conservative echo chambers.
Ever think that maybe you people are just nuts and need to stop whining when your party is on the bad side of a story?
Did you notice that I was just answering a question? Someone asked why this was on the front page of a "news for nerds" site. I told them why.
Because it was written to make the democrats look like evil power-grabbing evil evil evil evil-doers.
Hastert is a Republican.
Exactly my point. Hastert is a Republican, and the story is painting him as the victim of government overreach. If Hastert was a Democrat this article never would have made the front page - though an article postulating that "progressives" are inclined to partake in NAMBLA-like activities would.
How is this news for nerds?
Because it was written to make the democrats look like evil power-grabbing evil evil evil evil-doers. Also, it is potentially good fodder for Rand Paul's presidential campaign, and it makes democrats look evil. Those are all popular causes here.
sorry. that first line should read "since when did constitutionalist meanfascist???
It doesn't. However Rand is not a strict constitutionalist.
Rand is for going back and following the constitution, which means following the 10th amendment. which means if its not explicit in the constitution, its a states right
He advocates that inconsistently. He wants to obey the constitution when it fits his ends. Other times he doesn't give a damn about it. He is no less hypocritical on his interpretation of the constitution than most other politicians, he just makes a bigger deal about it and fewer people are willing to call him out on it. Being as slashdot in particular is overrun with members of Rand's father's cult, he has nearly a guaranteed friendly audience here.
please, if you think rand is a fascist, id LOVE to hear who you want to be elected who would actually follow the constitution, and remove the federal government from my life.
Try reading the full constitution before attempting to lecture on its contents. Then go find an actual definition of fascism before pretending that Rand is not one. Then come back and we can try this discussion again.
since when did constitutionalist fascist???
Please rephrase your anger in the form of a question in written English so I can respond to it.
wanting to let the 50 states decide, instead of the 1 federal government
I have not seen a single proposal from them that moved decision making from the federal government to the states that would be able to enhance personal liberty across the board. I have seen plenty from each of them that would enhance liberty for the most elite economic echelon at the expense of the rest, but that again is only enhancing the power structure.
they want literally the exact opposite of what you claim they do
You could reach that conclusion only by not paying attention to anything they have proposed, ever.
Wow, look at you. Trying to be rational, and use definitions in a political discussion here on slashdot. You must be new here.
fascism would mean bigger federal government (as you said, centralizing power)
Wrong. Fascism does not require a bigger federal government, in fact a larger government is generally the opposite of fascism. Fascism requires more power in the hands of fewer people. There are many ways to de-centralize power - including growing the federal government. Centralizing power - such as aspiring to the "government you can drown in a bathtub" principle - is a giant step towards fascism.
And more power in the hands of fewer people - at the expense of the rest - is a fundamental characteristic of what both Ron and Rand support.
if you are gonna make a statement, at least have SOMETHING to back it up
Pretty much everything either of them have ever supported supports my statement of them being fascists - particularly if you use a definition of fascism that makes sense rather than just one that is used as a generic label and put-down for anyone who you disagree with.
Who the fuck are the REAL fascists here??
Wow, I'm sorry I have insulted you to such a degree that you feel justified in using profanities.
I challenge you to think about the meaning of fascism, here. Fascism refers to the extreme concentration of power in the hands of very few people. Indeed the Patriot Act could qualify along those lines, and I am no fan of it.
However, the Ron Paul cult has been champions of fascism for a long time. The cult has favored restructuring power in many ways to exclude many people. Rand Paul fighting the Patriot Act renewal is just window dressing to encourage people to not pay attention to their driving motivations.
So he did one thing you agree with. The rest of his profile is just bat shit crazy.
"Revolution" was a term that was popular with the cult that Rand's father Ron ran for many years. The fact that we see it used here suggests that Rand is becoming even more popular with those cult members, some of whom felt Rand was drifting philosophically too far away from his father. In the end Rand Paul is just another fascist conservative running under the "libertarian" banner even though his notion of liberty is quite twisted.