Trump voters aren't going to vote for Cruz at all, and probably not Kasich. What I think is quite possible is that Trump will run as an independent, and then it's very unlikely the GOP will win (or Trump).
It'd be even more interesting if Bernie ran as an independent after the DNC shafts him on the Dem nomination: a 4-way race. It'll probably end up being decided by Congress at that point, which means likely a GOP establishment nominee.
While it's true that Islam is currently a rather backwards and violent religion, Christianity did the same stuff back in the middle ages. And back then, Islamic society was actually rather progressive by comparison. I guess back then, Islamic society had become a lot like much of Christian society today: people followed a watered-down version of the religion, mostly to keep up appearances and to hear some nice-sounding inspirational stuff on sundays (or whatever day they worship on). But then the fundies took over and things went straight down the shitter.
It'd be all too easy for the exact same thing to happen again with Christianity. It happened before, both with Islam and also with Christianity (again, see the middle ages), and Judaism has its own similar sects. This is the danger with these religions.
If we go the route of allowing people to use whatever restroom they want based on what sex they feel like they are that day, we might as well just make all bathrooms unisex.
And what's wrong with that? There's plenty of places in western Europe like that.
Um, I'm not sure the OP was saying anything negative about legalizing marijuana, he was clearly calling out policies allowing Muslim immigration as being "suicidal". The two aren't the same. Heck I know a bunch of somewhat right-wing people here in the US who are all in favor of legalizing weed, but are also all in favor of banning all immigration by Muslims. (They'd even like to have a Canadian-style healthcare system too.)
Being anti-drug-war does not necessarily equate with being open-borders.
It'd have to be a really big offer since a nasty crack shack house costs $1M CAD there. Vancouver's housing costs are absolutely insane.
I've been there a couple times, and it's a beautiful city, but I really don't know how anyone affords it (other than by having lived there a long time, before the prices skyrocketed, and buying a home before that).
If they don't like that, then maybe they should use a better voting system for their Primaries, one in which one extremist candidate doesn't win all the votes in that state because the other votes are spread too thinly over the more mainstream candidates.
We've been bitching about this problem with elections for decades now (esp. every time a 3rd-party candidate "splits the vote" in a general election), but the establishment parties refused to change. Well Trump has now shown how stupid they were, by using their own actions against them.
This is exactly why we tech people need to work on new physics and technology to exploit it, namely with wormholes to alternate dimensions. Since every place else on this planet seems to be going to hell, the answer is simple: we need to "slide" into an alternate universe where things are better. The was a TV show about this a while ago. I kinda liked the one where there were very few men left....
No. It is that Trump is an ignoramus who doesn't bother learning about issues, talks off the cuff with extreme ideas and then continues to push for those ideas. No one else would have claimed that John McCain's being a POW was a mark against McCain and a sign he wasn't a "winner" because no one else would have even thought it. No one else would have had a problem with reporters quoting when one claimed that global warming was a hoax made by the Chinese, because no one would have thought it. And no one would have quotes telling your fans that if they get violent with protesters he'll pay the legal bills, because no one else would have said anything remotely like that. All reporters are doing are quoting the actual words coming out of his mouth, and the contexts don't make them any better. No context makes keeping out a billion people from the US based on their religion a good idea. No issue of context makes his repeated claims about 1000s celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11 any less false. Etc. This isn't about reporters taking things out of context. This is what the man actually is doing and saying.
The problem here is that Trump is just showing the GOP for what it really is. Like saying the global warming being a hoax by the Chinese: how is that any worse than what everyone else in the GOP says, which is that global warming is a hoax by "the scientists"? There's no shortage of other GOP politicians saying incredibly stupid things and not backing down on them. Remember the whole "legitimate rape" thing by Todd Akin, and "women's bodies have a way to shut that down"?
For the fans being violent with protesters, other GOP people didn't have that problem because they relegated protesters to "free speech zones" far away from where anyone could see them.
Trump is great. He's succeeding brilliantly at out-Republicaning the Republicans. Instead of having terrible policy positions and then tweaking them a bit when they're too unpopular, he goes full-bore and shows just how awful and hypocritical the GOP and its policies are when taken to their logical extreme. The reporters are full of shit, because they're not doing the same for other GOP candidates and pointing this out. The reporters, as part of the mass media and the establishment, are trying to squelch him, because they liked the status quo where the GOP and DNC both did the bidding of the establishment while getting the masses riled up over social wedge issues, and Trump is expertly blowing a giant hole in that. It's why the GOP is in such a panic now. They want establishment people like Rubio who will give people a safe amount of lip service on stuff like conservative issues like abortion, "religious freedom" (to discriminate against gays), etc. but while pushing corporate-friendly economic policy and keeping the socially conservative masses placated. Then Trump comes in, after the GOP has gotten their base angry about this stuff and uses it all against them.
No. This completely misses the point. Even the far-right has been in favor of making it illegal for doctors to perform abortions and for any punishment to occur to doctors, not to the women.
That's because the far-right are hypocrites.
Trump is absolutely right: women should be punished for getting abortions, IF abortions are illegal. It's no different than prostitution: if you get caught being involved in prostitution, whether as a producer or a consumer, you go to jail. Same goes for drugs: if you're a dealer or a user, you go to jail. So why would it be different for abortions?
What Trump has done here is succeeding at pointing out the hypocrisy of the right's anti-abortion position. They don't want to punish women because they know it's far too politically unpalatable, so they just want to restrict its availability by going after doctors. Trump's position (before he backtracked) is consistent with rule-of-law: if you're going to say that something is heinous and awful and should be banned, you have to punish everyone caught being involved with the crime. If that's too draconian and has too many negative effects, then maybe you need to re-examine the underlying ethics of the policy position and whether it should be illegal at all.
That isn't much help for the people who need those jobs. They don't have anything else they can do to support themselves. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, people who are only mentally capable of factory work are not going to be successful at going to college and getting a job that requires a college education. What few jobs are left for people like this (manual labor-type jobs) are getting filled by immigrants, so as a result we're seeing huge support for Trump.
I think phones did the same thing. I've got a Galaxy S5 which honestly is more than I really need in a handheld computing device.... As a result I think smartphones are doing the same thing as PC OSes, to keep business going and people buying the latest thing they can no longer add functionality so they add fluff.
No, it's worse than that, they're actively removing features. I have the Galaxy S4, and the S5 looks like my next upgrade maybe, but for now I'm happy with the S4. The S5 maybe adds a bit of speed, plus waterproofness.
But after that, it's been all downhill: they've removed the easily-replaced battery, the S6 removed the SD card slot (the S7 put it back in though), and a recent review I read showed a teardown of the S7 and they rated it very poor for serviceability, while citing my S4 as the gold standard for this. Even replacing the PCB with the USB connector on an S7 will likely break the screen because of the way it's put together. Not on my S4.
I imagine I'll keep my S4 for quite a while, depending on how long they issue updates, and how well it's supported by alternative ROMs.
So what I think is now presented as counter-culture really isn't -- it's the same old structure and system, this time with plaid shirts, beards and microbrews.
I think you're absolutely right about this, however I think laying it at the feet of the Millenials is wrong.
While I do see a lot of Millenials following these fads (plus the whole tattoo fad), they're not the only ones. I'm a little over 40 and am now back in the dating rat-race, and I can't tell you how many women my own age (I tend to look most for women aged 34-43, particularly in their late 30s which is on the tail end of Gen X), and I cannot tell you how many women's profiles talk about how much they love beards and/or tattoos. (As you might guess, I have neither, and have no plans of getting them either.) This isn't just uneducated redneck women either, these women are educated professionals. Oh yeah, and big dogs. I thought women were supposed to be cat lovers. But not any more, well over 50% of women in this age range specify that any man they date "must love dogs" (exact quote, seen countless times). I haven't looked at competing mens' profiles, so I'm actually starting to wonder if men my age are all cat-lovers since so many women are demanding dog-lovers.
Even though I live near a city that supposedly has a big surplus of single women, what I'm seeing on the market is not encouraging at all. I'm really starting to wonder if I shouldn't try getting a job in Europe; maybe the ~40yo women over there have more realistic expectations and aren't so interested in bearded, tattooed men. Plus, there's probably a lot more in-shape women over there too.
I mostly agree, but I think you're picking on Firefox way too much. The UI of Firefox hasn't changed much (at least for me on Linux Mint, not too sure about the Windoze version since I haven't used that in a while). The standard menu disappeared to save screen real estate, but comes back if you press "Alt". It has a somewhat annoying big-button-menu. But if you compare it to Chrome, its main competition, it isn't that bad: Chrome is far more minimalistic. Also don't forget: Firefox still has "about:config" where you can tweak all kinds of settings. The bit about the Chrome-like extension model is a bit worrisome, though. But again, this thing about FF users "fleeing to alternate browsers" really makes no sense, and I think is incorrect. If these people really didn't like these changes, why on earth would they "flee" to the *one browser* (Chrome), which has these very same changes and to a worse degree? People are using Chrome more for other reasons, not the reasons you're complaining about. It's probably mostly because Google's been really successful at marketing Chrome and using their other services to push it, so casual users are more likely to install it. Mozilla does not own a giant, highly successful search engine and webmail service to use to advertise their browser with. And tech nerds like us just aren't a big part of the web-using population any more, now that every idiot and his brother are on the web using Facebook. What would be more interesting is to see the absolute numbers of Firefox users over the last 15 years, rather than to see marketshare.
But you're mostly right about the other stuff, particularly Gnome3, Windows Metro, etc. This has really been pushed by the huge rise of mobile devices (iOS/Android) and their simplistic touch UIs, and the cargo-cult mentality of existing players trying to ape this.
MS should get into malware too: they could greatly improve their profitability. By serving malware-laden ads to their customers, and then offering malware clean-up services and security software, they could make a lot of money. If it's OK for a large website like forbes.com to serve malware, why shouldn't MS?
Yes, I do dismiss everything because it's so blatant. There's no telling how many lies by Hillary they're simply not putting on there. The whole point is this is a *relative* ranking of the candidates. You can't have an honest relative ranking if you're subtracting points for one person for something that's BS and which everyone is guilty of. Trump is obviously a liar, but Politifact has not convinced me he's a bigger liar than Cruz or Hillary.
Well, RAM is a limited resource (as is CPU), so if you have a bunch of tabs open, ABP is going to run out of RAM sooner than ABP. Maybe you have 64G on your machine, but I don't.
And somehow they think malware has something to do with publishers.
Sorry, but it does. If you host malware on your website, then of course it has something to do with you! It doesn't matter if you've outsourced your ads and the ad server served up the malware: you personally vouched for the ad server, and by extension, the malware, by adding the ads to your site, so the malware is your responsibility.
No one owes you a living doing something you apparently like to do. I'd love to have a job sitting at home getting paid $150k to work on a hobby, but that's not likely to happen, and people certainly don't *owe* it to me. If your business isn't panning out, maybe it's time to scale it back or shut it down.
Have you tried posting on your site how much money you actually make from ads, how little you got from donations, and an ultimatum about how much you need to earn in order to keep the site going? Maybe that'll put a fire under the users. Or perhaps a "premium user" option, where users can pay a yearly subscription fee in exchange for no ads and maybe some premium features or recognition? There are ways of extracting money from users, which other sites have come up with in the past. On lwn.net, for instance, paid subscribers get access to new articles (for both reading and commenting), while free users have to wait a week to get at them. Reddit has the "Reddit Gold" feature.
But if ultimately, the users simply aren't willing to pay what it takes to keep the site running, then it obviously wasn't worth that much to them anyway.
Aren't you a bit worried about your own reasoning here?
Not at all.
"At least I'm not worse than Hitler." should be a line from a Mel Brooks film, not a line used to win an election.
You would think. But you have to look at the choices: Trump or Hillary (as I stated before, with my assumption that the election would come down to those two). So you have someone who's obviously bad (Trump), but being horrible is not a disqualifier in a system where there's only one other choice, and she's even more horrible.
Trump has some major positive traits, from what I can tell: 1) He seems to be very anti-TPP. 2) He seems to be against H1B visa abuse (though he seems to waffle on this like some issues) 3) He seems to be very much against pointless interventionist wars which help out Sunni Islamists.
Now compare this with Hillary: She's very pro-TPP (unless she's trying to woo Bernie voters), she's all in favor of raising H1B limits, and she's a total war hawk and is involved in weapons deals to Islamists, and will undoubtedly get us involved in yet another war in the middle east which has the effect of boosting ISIS or some similar groups.
Now throw in the fact that Hillary is blatantly sold out to Goldman Sachs and the private prison industry.
Given these two choices, I fail to see how Trump isn't the better alternative, by far. If you consider yourself a "progressive" at all, Trump is the only sane choice here.
Maybe we'll get lucky and the DNC will wake up and get their superdelegates to vote for Bernie, or the FBI will prosecute Hillary for the email scandal leaving Bernie as the default, but I'm not holding by breath. AFAICT, the DNC has completely sold out to the warmongers, private prisons, and Wall Street, so in this insane environment, Trump actually makes sense. If he does turn out to be a disaster, the Democrats have only themselves to blame for this mess.
And I guess any programmer feels the same, as we're trained to express what we're thinking without errors (as doing otherwise makes the compiler/tests scream at us).
No, not always. Many times you can make programming errors which compile just fine, but cause erroneous behavior in the software later on.
Then, all the "non-asshole" end users who don't notice spelling errors bitch and complain about the software being buggy.
You can't have it both ways. Do you want reliable software, or do you want us to be lax about spelling and grammar errors?
Further, he claims this is a due to nationalism. Based on the fact that in a case of German company vs. German company, a court ruled in favor of German company. How fucking retarded do you have to be to accept that argument?
It's really sad that this is (the OP claiming nationalism) the depths to which commentary on Slashdot has descended. Where have all the really smart people gone? Here we are wasting time pointing out utterly obvious logical fallacies that a 2nd-grader could have pointed out. Absolutely pathetic.
Hobby sites are dirt cheap to pay out-of-pocket, and have been for years and years. You can get web hosting plans for $5/month or less. They won't support a huge amount of traffic, but for a "hobby" site you really shouldn't need a lot of bandwidth. Lots of sites are funded by donations; I believe soylentnews.com is funded that way (since it needs a lot more bandwidth and resources than a $5/month site).
Slashdot Mirror
Trump voters aren't going to vote for Cruz at all, and probably not Kasich. What I think is quite possible is that Trump will run as an independent, and then it's very unlikely the GOP will win (or Trump).
It'd be even more interesting if Bernie ran as an independent after the DNC shafts him on the Dem nomination: a 4-way race. It'll probably end up being decided by Congress at that point, which means likely a GOP establishment nominee.
While it's true that Islam is currently a rather backwards and violent religion, Christianity did the same stuff back in the middle ages. And back then, Islamic society was actually rather progressive by comparison. I guess back then, Islamic society had become a lot like much of Christian society today: people followed a watered-down version of the religion, mostly to keep up appearances and to hear some nice-sounding inspirational stuff on sundays (or whatever day they worship on). But then the fundies took over and things went straight down the shitter.
It'd be all too easy for the exact same thing to happen again with Christianity. It happened before, both with Islam and also with Christianity (again, see the middle ages), and Judaism has its own similar sects. This is the danger with these religions.
If we go the route of allowing people to use whatever restroom they want based on what sex they feel like they are that day, we might as well just make all bathrooms unisex.
And what's wrong with that? There's plenty of places in western Europe like that.
Um, I'm not sure the OP was saying anything negative about legalizing marijuana, he was clearly calling out policies allowing Muslim immigration as being "suicidal". The two aren't the same. Heck I know a bunch of somewhat right-wing people here in the US who are all in favor of legalizing weed, but are also all in favor of banning all immigration by Muslims. (They'd even like to have a Canadian-style healthcare system too.)
Being anti-drug-war does not necessarily equate with being open-borders.
It'd have to be a really big offer since a nasty crack shack house costs $1M CAD there. Vancouver's housing costs are absolutely insane.
I've been there a couple times, and it's a beautiful city, but I really don't know how anyone affords it (other than by having lived there a long time, before the prices skyrocketed, and buying a home before that).
Well that's the GOP's fault, now isn't it?
If they don't like that, then maybe they should use a better voting system for their Primaries, one in which one extremist candidate doesn't win all the votes in that state because the other votes are spread too thinly over the more mainstream candidates.
We've been bitching about this problem with elections for decades now (esp. every time a 3rd-party candidate "splits the vote" in a general election), but the establishment parties refused to change. Well Trump has now shown how stupid they were, by using their own actions against them.
Yep, it's exactly like the old adage about slowly boiling a frog.
Except that in reality, frogs aren't actually that stupid. They'll jump out when the water gets too hot. Humans aren't as smart.
This is exactly why we tech people need to work on new physics and technology to exploit it, namely with wormholes to alternate dimensions. Since every place else on this planet seems to be going to hell, the answer is simple: we need to "slide" into an alternate universe where things are better. The was a TV show about this a while ago. I kinda liked the one where there were very few men left....
No. It is that Trump is an ignoramus who doesn't bother learning about issues, talks off the cuff with extreme ideas and then continues to push for those ideas. No one else would have claimed that John McCain's being a POW was a mark against McCain and a sign he wasn't a "winner" because no one else would have even thought it. No one else would have had a problem with reporters quoting when one claimed that global warming was a hoax made by the Chinese, because no one would have thought it. And no one would have quotes telling your fans that if they get violent with protesters he'll pay the legal bills, because no one else would have said anything remotely like that. All reporters are doing are quoting the actual words coming out of his mouth, and the contexts don't make them any better. No context makes keeping out a billion people from the US based on their religion a good idea. No issue of context makes his repeated claims about 1000s celebrating in New Jersey on 9/11 any less false. Etc. This isn't about reporters taking things out of context. This is what the man actually is doing and saying.
The problem here is that Trump is just showing the GOP for what it really is. Like saying the global warming being a hoax by the Chinese: how is that any worse than what everyone else in the GOP says, which is that global warming is a hoax by "the scientists"? There's no shortage of other GOP politicians saying incredibly stupid things and not backing down on them. Remember the whole "legitimate rape" thing by Todd Akin, and "women's bodies have a way to shut that down"?
For the fans being violent with protesters, other GOP people didn't have that problem because they relegated protesters to "free speech zones" far away from where anyone could see them.
Trump is great. He's succeeding brilliantly at out-Republicaning the Republicans. Instead of having terrible policy positions and then tweaking them a bit when they're too unpopular, he goes full-bore and shows just how awful and hypocritical the GOP and its policies are when taken to their logical extreme. The reporters are full of shit, because they're not doing the same for other GOP candidates and pointing this out. The reporters, as part of the mass media and the establishment, are trying to squelch him, because they liked the status quo where the GOP and DNC both did the bidding of the establishment while getting the masses riled up over social wedge issues, and Trump is expertly blowing a giant hole in that. It's why the GOP is in such a panic now. They want establishment people like Rubio who will give people a safe amount of lip service on stuff like conservative issues like abortion, "religious freedom" (to discriminate against gays), etc. but while pushing corporate-friendly economic policy and keeping the socially conservative masses placated. Then Trump comes in, after the GOP has gotten their base angry about this stuff and uses it all against them.
No. This completely misses the point. Even the far-right has been in favor of making it illegal for doctors to perform abortions and for any punishment to occur to doctors, not to the women.
That's because the far-right are hypocrites.
Trump is absolutely right: women should be punished for getting abortions, IF abortions are illegal. It's no different than prostitution: if you get caught being involved in prostitution, whether as a producer or a consumer, you go to jail. Same goes for drugs: if you're a dealer or a user, you go to jail. So why would it be different for abortions?
What Trump has done here is succeeding at pointing out the hypocrisy of the right's anti-abortion position. They don't want to punish women because they know it's far too politically unpalatable, so they just want to restrict its availability by going after doctors. Trump's position (before he backtracked) is consistent with rule-of-law: if you're going to say that something is heinous and awful and should be banned, you have to punish everyone caught being involved with the crime. If that's too draconian and has too many negative effects, then maybe you need to re-examine the underlying ethics of the policy position and whether it should be illegal at all.
That isn't much help for the people who need those jobs. They don't have anything else they can do to support themselves. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, people who are only mentally capable of factory work are not going to be successful at going to college and getting a job that requires a college education. What few jobs are left for people like this (manual labor-type jobs) are getting filled by immigrants, so as a result we're seeing huge support for Trump.
I think phones did the same thing. I've got a Galaxy S5 which honestly is more than I really need in a handheld computing device.... As a result I think smartphones are doing the same thing as PC OSes, to keep business going and people buying the latest thing they can no longer add functionality so they add fluff.
No, it's worse than that, they're actively removing features. I have the Galaxy S4, and the S5 looks like my next upgrade maybe, but for now I'm happy with the S4. The S5 maybe adds a bit of speed, plus waterproofness.
But after that, it's been all downhill: they've removed the easily-replaced battery, the S6 removed the SD card slot (the S7 put it back in though), and a recent review I read showed a teardown of the S7 and they rated it very poor for serviceability, while citing my S4 as the gold standard for this. Even replacing the PCB with the USB connector on an S7 will likely break the screen because of the way it's put together. Not on my S4.
I imagine I'll keep my S4 for quite a while, depending on how long they issue updates, and how well it's supported by alternative ROMs.
So what I think is now presented as counter-culture really isn't -- it's the same old structure and system, this time with plaid shirts, beards and microbrews.
I think you're absolutely right about this, however I think laying it at the feet of the Millenials is wrong.
While I do see a lot of Millenials following these fads (plus the whole tattoo fad), they're not the only ones. I'm a little over 40 and am now back in the dating rat-race, and I can't tell you how many women my own age (I tend to look most for women aged 34-43, particularly in their late 30s which is on the tail end of Gen X), and I cannot tell you how many women's profiles talk about how much they love beards and/or tattoos. (As you might guess, I have neither, and have no plans of getting them either.) This isn't just uneducated redneck women either, these women are educated professionals. Oh yeah, and big dogs. I thought women were supposed to be cat lovers. But not any more, well over 50% of women in this age range specify that any man they date "must love dogs" (exact quote, seen countless times). I haven't looked at competing mens' profiles, so I'm actually starting to wonder if men my age are all cat-lovers since so many women are demanding dog-lovers.
Even though I live near a city that supposedly has a big surplus of single women, what I'm seeing on the market is not encouraging at all. I'm really starting to wonder if I shouldn't try getting a job in Europe; maybe the ~40yo women over there have more realistic expectations and aren't so interested in bearded, tattooed men. Plus, there's probably a lot more in-shape women over there too.
I mostly agree, but I think you're picking on Firefox way too much. The UI of Firefox hasn't changed much (at least for me on Linux Mint, not too sure about the Windoze version since I haven't used that in a while). The standard menu disappeared to save screen real estate, but comes back if you press "Alt". It has a somewhat annoying big-button-menu. But if you compare it to Chrome, its main competition, it isn't that bad: Chrome is far more minimalistic. Also don't forget: Firefox still has "about:config" where you can tweak all kinds of settings. The bit about the Chrome-like extension model is a bit worrisome, though. But again, this thing about FF users "fleeing to alternate browsers" really makes no sense, and I think is incorrect. If these people really didn't like these changes, why on earth would they "flee" to the *one browser* (Chrome), which has these very same changes and to a worse degree? People are using Chrome more for other reasons, not the reasons you're complaining about. It's probably mostly because Google's been really successful at marketing Chrome and using their other services to push it, so casual users are more likely to install it. Mozilla does not own a giant, highly successful search engine and webmail service to use to advertise their browser with. And tech nerds like us just aren't a big part of the web-using population any more, now that every idiot and his brother are on the web using Facebook. What would be more interesting is to see the absolute numbers of Firefox users over the last 15 years, rather than to see marketshare.
But you're mostly right about the other stuff, particularly Gnome3, Windows Metro, etc. This has really been pushed by the huge rise of mobile devices (iOS/Android) and their simplistic touch UIs, and the cargo-cult mentality of existing players trying to ape this.
MS should get into malware too: they could greatly improve their profitability. By serving malware-laden ads to their customers, and then offering malware clean-up services and security software, they could make a lot of money. If it's OK for a large website like forbes.com to serve malware, why shouldn't MS?
Calling switching to a superior piece of software "unnecessary optimization" is incredibly stupid.
Plus, my computer is limited to 4GB and isn't terribly fast, so more optimization really is noticeable here.
Hear, hear!
Yes, I do dismiss everything because it's so blatant. There's no telling how many lies by Hillary they're simply not putting on there. The whole point is this is a *relative* ranking of the candidates. You can't have an honest relative ranking if you're subtracting points for one person for something that's BS and which everyone is guilty of. Trump is obviously a liar, but Politifact has not convinced me he's a bigger liar than Cruz or Hillary.
Well, RAM is a limited resource (as is CPU), so if you have a bunch of tabs open, ABP is going to run out of RAM sooner than ABP. Maybe you have 64G on your machine, but I don't.
Why use more resources than you have to?
And somehow they think malware has something to do with publishers.
Sorry, but it does. If you host malware on your website, then of course it has something to do with you! It doesn't matter if you've outsourced your ads and the ad server served up the malware: you personally vouched for the ad server, and by extension, the malware, by adding the ads to your site, so the malware is your responsibility.
No one owes you a living doing something you apparently like to do. I'd love to have a job sitting at home getting paid $150k to work on a hobby, but that's not likely to happen, and people certainly don't *owe* it to me. If your business isn't panning out, maybe it's time to scale it back or shut it down.
Have you tried posting on your site how much money you actually make from ads, how little you got from donations, and an ultimatum about how much you need to earn in order to keep the site going? Maybe that'll put a fire under the users. Or perhaps a "premium user" option, where users can pay a yearly subscription fee in exchange for no ads and maybe some premium features or recognition? There are ways of extracting money from users, which other sites have come up with in the past. On lwn.net, for instance, paid subscribers get access to new articles (for both reading and commenting), while free users have to wait a week to get at them. Reddit has the "Reddit Gold" feature.
But if ultimately, the users simply aren't willing to pay what it takes to keep the site running, then it obviously wasn't worth that much to them anyway.
Aren't you a bit worried about your own reasoning here?
Not at all.
"At least I'm not worse than Hitler." should be a line from a Mel Brooks film, not a line used to win an election.
You would think. But you have to look at the choices: Trump or Hillary (as I stated before, with my assumption that the election would come down to those two). So you have someone who's obviously bad (Trump), but being horrible is not a disqualifier in a system where there's only one other choice, and she's even more horrible.
Trump has some major positive traits, from what I can tell:
1) He seems to be very anti-TPP.
2) He seems to be against H1B visa abuse (though he seems to waffle on this like some issues)
3) He seems to be very much against pointless interventionist wars which help out Sunni Islamists.
Now compare this with Hillary: She's very pro-TPP (unless she's trying to woo Bernie voters), she's all in favor of raising H1B limits, and she's a total war hawk and is involved in weapons deals to Islamists, and will undoubtedly get us involved in yet another war in the middle east which has the effect of boosting ISIS or some similar groups.
Now throw in the fact that Hillary is blatantly sold out to Goldman Sachs and the private prison industry.
Given these two choices, I fail to see how Trump isn't the better alternative, by far. If you consider yourself a "progressive" at all, Trump is the only sane choice here.
Maybe we'll get lucky and the DNC will wake up and get their superdelegates to vote for Bernie, or the FBI will prosecute Hillary for the email scandal leaving Bernie as the default, but I'm not holding by breath. AFAICT, the DNC has completely sold out to the warmongers, private prisons, and Wall Street, so in this insane environment, Trump actually makes sense. If he does turn out to be a disaster, the Democrats have only themselves to blame for this mess.
And I guess any programmer feels the same, as we're trained to express what we're thinking without errors (as doing otherwise makes the compiler/tests scream at us).
No, not always. Many times you can make programming errors which compile just fine, but cause erroneous behavior in the software later on.
Then, all the "non-asshole" end users who don't notice spelling errors bitch and complain about the software being buggy.
You can't have it both ways. Do you want reliable software, or do you want us to be lax about spelling and grammar errors?
Further, he claims this is a due to nationalism. Based on the fact that in a case of German company vs. German company, a court ruled in favor of German company.
How fucking retarded do you have to be to accept that argument?
It's really sad that this is (the OP claiming nationalism) the depths to which commentary on Slashdot has descended. Where have all the really smart people gone? Here we are wasting time pointing out utterly obvious logical fallacies that a 2nd-grader could have pointed out. Absolutely pathetic.
Who cares? uBlock Origin is faster and uses less RAM. Why bother with something that's a pig with machine resources?
Hobby sites are dirt cheap to pay out-of-pocket, and have been for years and years. You can get web hosting plans for $5/month or less. They won't support a huge amount of traffic, but for a "hobby" site you really shouldn't need a lot of bandwidth. Lots of sites are funded by donations; I believe soylentnews.com is funded that way (since it needs a lot more bandwidth and resources than a $5/month site).