Except no one actually said that. It's hard to actually discuss things (what free speech is actually for) when any point considered (correctly or not) even vaguely against someone's politics is met with a gale of howling.
No one suggested banning books or youtube. You tube promoting more extreme videos is no more muh freeze peach than it always reommending cat videos. It's an automated system in use by a few billion people. It has an effect whether that agrees with your worldview or not.
Refusing to discussit because of book banning or somesuch nonsense is hardly muh freeze peach.
Uh, no. The point - which was clear enough the first time - that's there's as much evidence t
That was the second post, ya numpty. Try reading the FIRST one I responded to. The one where you said:
No collusion, no Russiagate. It doesn't matter if Putin himself came over and hacked voting machines to deny Hillary the vote, if there is no collusion with Trump then Mueller has no basis for his witch hunt.
The only criterion you gave was Trump's actions. Ergo, you consider the actions of the staffers unimportant. Don't try to fob me off with tangents, that is what you said: only Trump's actions matter.
Saying there's no evidence against staffers means you are admitting tacitly that their actions do matter, else why would evidence be relevant?
From rigging an election (Democratic primary)
Bernie lost fair and square. He's not a Democrat, he's an independent (always was) so it's not surprising that the Dem faithfuls voted for a long term Dem. Oh sorry I forgot you're a Trumpanzee conspiracy theorist. But that's a tautology, innit.
I am on a laptop and synclient no longer works because they are using a different touchpad driver. I suppose it is a matter of time before this is the situation on Debian too.
Yes! You triggered the correct memory. I've encountered this. Synclient was superseded by libinput as a more generic system. Try here:
Please, don't hold back: tell us how you REALLY feel.
Seriously though wow the bar for people whining has got low. We have an article which is really only of interest to nerds. And you're complaining. Perhaps the new tag line should be Slashdot: fuck the articles, we're going to whinge.
I hear some systems like to misconfigure that by default because Gnome at any rate thinks it's an "easter egg" and is determined to destroy everything good about Linux, preferring insteat a Windows 95^W XP^W^WOSX ripoff.
I assume you're on a laptop in which case synclient will beable to set the mapping of button 2 back to button 2.
One thing I did like about 17.10 was the ability to configure a 'start application' to run when I log in on the graphical desktop. I haven't figured out how to do that with Debian. Yet.
I suspect that ANOTHER CRIPPLING BOMBSHELL HITS THE BELEAGURED UBUNTU COMMUNITY er I mean that the death of Ubuntu is greatly exaggerated. I've heard people don't like it so much for desktop use. I've never really noticed: as an FVWM diehard, all the "better" desktop distributions don't do much for me since I install FVWM first thing anyway.
I'm not a fan of systemd, but that's hardly unique to ubuntu to put it mildly. It's still pretty popular on servers and the LTS releases are generally pretty hassle free: you set them up and they don't break for 5 years. Likewise workstations.
Ubuntu has mostly reached the point where it's boring and generally works.
On Linux (and other open source OS, i.e.: the only distributions where code for nearly all the software is available and can be recompiled with a retpoline-enabled compiler, such as the recent GCC 7.3.1, and thus the only environment where there's any hope for spectre counter measures to be actually deployed): probably close do zero, anyway.
Unless you're running Gentoo of course. Then if you accidently look at your computer wrong you'll trigger a full rebuild of everything (with -funroll-ALL-the-things, naturally) and you'll have a fully patched system next month.
Rust is perfectly secure! How can so many adamant evangelists be wrong?
I've always found the techno-luddism on slashdot interesting. Technology is awesome and amazing and new things are cool except that actually it reached it's peak in 1989 with ANSI C and basically everything else has been downhill from there and none of the news ideas are anything but bloat and cruft (seriously who actually says "cruft" anyway).
Read your own post. You argued that unless it was Trump himself colluding then there was no need for Meuller going about his "witch hunt". You are explicitly discounting any collusion from staffers as being important from a law enforcement point of view.
Well, if you put cooks into positions of power in your country
Putting cooks in power is a half-baked idea. Perhaps you should have attended the primary debates so you could give them a grilling, but you probably had too much on your plate. I think we're all toast now as a result.
Once selfdriving electric cars become a thing. There's literally no purpose for this boondoggle anymore.
How many cars can sustain 200 miles per hour for 4 hours? And electric, self driving cars still take up far more space per passenger than trains. Electric and self driving cars aren't magic pixie dust that make everything work.
All of this so that people can encrypt their cat videos and other frivolous things that don't need it.
They do need it. The government(s) seemed intent on everything everybody was looking at all the time. Even cute cat videos need encryption because it's none of the government's fucking business if I'm watching them.
Yeah, most of us consider lack of emoji support a feature not a bug.
Most half way modern IRC and XMPP clients support emojis (presuming you're running in a half way modern terminal) since they support UTF-8 and that has emojis.
They seem to be talking about emoji-reactions which are presumably a layer on top of that. I have no ide what those are; they do not sound good.
Isn't the basis of science that you can personally verify any claim?
No, not even slightly. The basis is that the claims are in principle falsifiable, not that you can personally verify them.
I'm never going to be able to verify the claims of hogh energy physics because my maths isn't good enough to understand the claims in the first place and I can't afford and don't have the skills to build a particle accelerator.
Nonetheless, the existence of quarks is a fact.
I am sure that many scientists that do care enough about atomic weights have gone through to personally corroborate that fact. I personally, and I assume you as well, don't care enough to spend that time and energy to verify it.
Many, especially these days? I doubt it. Scientists have science to do; verifying well established facts which can easily be looked up (e.g. atomic weights) is just a waste of time.
And to another point, do you care enough or does that fact impact your life to such an extent that the validity of that fact can negatively affect your life?
The first, second and third laws of thermodynamics affect my life every day in a negative way. Can't win, can't break even and can't get out of the game. I've not actually tried building perpetual motion machines just to see.
So, the only things you know as a fact are things that you have personally proven?
You don't?
No, I don't. For example, it's a fact that the average standard atomic weight of Oxygen on Earth is 15.999. It's a fact and no I haven't verified it personally.
It's also a fact that stratospheric clouds are made of water. I mean I can tell that with mist, sure, but I've never actually managed to get up into a cloud myself and personally verify it is true.
It's basically facile to claim that things you haven't personally verified are facts is true.
If I am not interested then I look at who is saying it and consider what they gain from any specific fact.
That's also an inane point of view. There's plenty of other (better) smell tests, like does it violate the lwas of physics. It is obviously contrary to very easily obtainable data. Does it sound too good to be true.
The trouble wiht seeing if the person has something to gain is that (a) just because they are doesn't me they're wrong and (b) they could very well simply be deluded even if they have nothing to gain.
Slashdot Mirror
They should ban books altogether!
Except no one actually said that. It's hard to actually discuss things (what free speech is actually for) when any point considered (correctly or not) even vaguely against someone's politics is met with a gale of howling.
No one suggested banning books or youtube. You tube promoting more extreme videos is no more muh freeze peach than it always reommending cat videos. It's an automated system in use by a few billion people. It has an effect whether that agrees with your worldview or not.
Refusing to discussit because of book banning or somesuch nonsense is hardly muh freeze peach.
He supports women's rights and empowerment. He opposes men taking young girls as brides. Read his blog.
Huh, well I guess a stopped clock can be right twice a day. Still doens't excuse systemd or the wretched piece of garbage known as pulseaudio.
Uh, no. The point - which was clear enough the first time - that's there's as much evidence t
That was the second post, ya numpty. Try reading the FIRST one I responded to. The one where you said:
The only criterion you gave was Trump's actions. Ergo, you consider the actions of the staffers unimportant. Don't try to fob me off with tangents, that is what you said: only Trump's actions matter.
Saying there's no evidence against staffers means you are admitting tacitly that their actions do matter, else why would evidence be relevant?
From rigging an election (Democratic primary)
Bernie lost fair and square. He's not a Democrat, he's an independent (always was) so it's not surprising that the Dem faithfuls voted for a long term Dem. Oh sorry I forgot you're a Trumpanzee conspiracy theorist. But that's a tautology, innit.
I am on a laptop and synclient no longer works because they are using a different touchpad driver. I suppose it is a matter of time before this is the situation on Debian too.
Yes! You triggered the correct memory. I've encountered this. Synclient was superseded by libinput as a more generic system. Try here:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/ind...
The arch documentation for Linux is excellent by the way, even if you don't use arch. TL;DR, you use xinput now, not synclient.
Gnome Shell - the default (AFAIK) for Debian.
I don't use GNOME, but I believe you can put scripts in somethig like .config/autostart
Here's the spec:
https://specifications.freedes...
The documentation has the flavour of the Isla de Muerta: it cannot be found save by those who already know where it it, but now you know too.
Interesting. In the Age of the Internet all things are equally true.
Yep. This means that finally, in the Age of the Internet, you can finally be right about something!
Please, don't hold back: tell us how you REALLY feel.
Seriously though wow the bar for people whining has got low. We have an article which is really only of interest to nerds. And you're complaining. Perhaps the new tag line should be Slashdot: fuck the articles, we're going to whinge.
If Twitter realized that retweets are stupid they should just remove the feature instead of penalizing people who use it.
I love the excessively simplistic attitude people take. Retweets are in general fine, that doesn't mean they can't be abused.
Spam is abouse of email, but that doesn't mean email should be banned.
I also miss middle mouse button copy/paste.
I hear some systems like to misconfigure that by default because Gnome at any rate thinks it's an "easter egg" and is determined to destroy everything good about Linux, preferring insteat a Windows 95^W XP^W^WOSX ripoff.
I assume you're on a laptop in which case synclient will beable to set the mapping of button 2 back to button 2.
One thing I did like about 17.10 was the ability to configure a 'start application' to run when I log in on the graphical desktop. I haven't figured out how to do that with Debian. Yet.
Which desktop?
I suspect that ANOTHER CRIPPLING BOMBSHELL HITS THE BELEAGURED UBUNTU COMMUNITY er I mean that the death of Ubuntu is greatly exaggerated. I've heard people don't like it so much for desktop use. I've never really noticed: as an FVWM diehard, all the "better" desktop distributions don't do much for me since I install FVWM first thing anyway.
I'm not a fan of systemd, but that's hardly unique to ubuntu to put it mildly. It's still pretty popular on servers and the LTS releases are generally pretty hassle free: you set them up and they don't break for 5 years. Likewise workstations.
Ubuntu has mostly reached the point where it's boring and generally works.
On Linux (and other open source OS, i.e.: the only distributions where code for nearly all the software is available and can be recompiled with a retpoline-enabled compiler, such as the recent GCC 7.3.1, and thus the only environment where there's any hope for spectre counter measures to be actually deployed): probably close do zero, anyway.
Unless you're running Gentoo of course. Then if you accidently look at your computer wrong you'll trigger a full rebuild of everything (with -funroll-ALL-the-things, naturally) and you'll have a fully patched system next month.
Rust is perfectly secure! How can so many adamant evangelists be wrong?
I've always found the techno-luddism on slashdot interesting. Technology is awesome and amazing and new things are cool except that actually it reached it's peak in 1989 with ANSI C and basically everything else has been downhill from there and none of the news ideas are anything but bloat and cruft (seriously who actually says "cruft" anyway).
Look what systemd and poettering has done. The sjws ruined linux. Literally Ruined It.
My god! SJWs gave us systemd? Is there nothing, nothing I say, they won't stoop to?
Your best arguemnt is "oh but Clinton!".
Read your own post. You argued that unless it was Trump himself colluding then there was no need for Meuller going about his "witch hunt". You are explicitly discounting any collusion from staffers as being important from a law enforcement point of view.
Oh but Clinton!
And that my man is why you're fucked.
Well, if you put cooks into positions of power in your country
Putting cooks in power is a half-baked idea. Perhaps you should have attended the primary debates so you could give them a grilling, but you probably had too much on your plate. I think we're all toast now as a result.
Anyway, food for thought.
if there is no collusion with Trump then Mueller has no basis for his witch hunt.
So if there was only collusion with many of Trump's staffers that would be prefectly fine because there was no collusion with Trump? Really?
California could buy and distribute 155 million $50 airline tickets.
And how much would the additional road and airport capacity required to support that additional load cost?
Once selfdriving electric cars become a thing. There's literally no purpose for this boondoggle anymore.
How many cars can sustain 200 miles per hour for 4 hours? And electric, self driving cars still take up far more space per passenger than trains. Electric and self driving cars aren't magic pixie dust that make everything work.
Theres no way this is better than simply taking an airplane between the cities.
Proposition: trains suck.
Proof: Europe does not exist.
This old tony
EEVblog
All of this so that people can encrypt their cat videos and other frivolous things that don't need it.
They do need it. The government(s) seemed intent on everything everybody was looking at all the time. Even cute cat videos need encryption because it's none of the government's fucking business if I'm watching them.
Yeah, most of us consider lack of emoji support a feature not a bug.
Most half way modern IRC and XMPP clients support emojis (presuming you're running in a half way modern terminal) since they support UTF-8 and that has emojis.
They seem to be talking about emoji-reactions which are presumably a layer on top of that. I have no ide what those are; they do not sound good.
It doesn't do us a lot of good to have a squad of soldiers repeatedly making the WASD motion in the middle of a battle.
Plus, yelling "your a fagot" when you get shot doesn't help much, and neither does tebagging downed enemies.
What you're basically aying is you're a mindless product of liberals? A group so evil, they actually created you!
Isn't the basis of science that you can personally verify any claim?
No, not even slightly. The basis is that the claims are in principle falsifiable, not that you can personally verify them.
I'm never going to be able to verify the claims of hogh energy physics because my maths isn't good enough to understand the claims in the first place and I can't afford and don't have the skills to build a particle accelerator.
Nonetheless, the existence of quarks is a fact.
I am sure that many scientists that do care enough about atomic weights have gone through to personally corroborate that fact. I personally, and I assume you as well, don't care enough to spend that time and energy to verify it.
Many, especially these days? I doubt it. Scientists have science to do; verifying well established facts which can easily be looked up (e.g. atomic weights) is just a waste of time.
And to another point, do you care enough or does that fact impact your life to such an extent that the validity of that fact can negatively affect your life?
The first, second and third laws of thermodynamics affect my life every day in a negative way. Can't win, can't break even and can't get out of the game. I've not actually tried building perpetual motion machines just to see.
So, the only things you know as a fact are things that you have personally proven?
You don't?
No, I don't. For example, it's a fact that the average standard atomic weight of Oxygen on Earth is 15.999. It's a fact and no I haven't verified it personally.
It's also a fact that stratospheric clouds are made of water. I mean I can tell that with mist, sure, but I've never actually managed to get up into a cloud myself and personally verify it is true.
It's basically facile to claim that things you haven't personally verified are facts is true.
If I am not interested then I look at who is saying it and consider what they gain from any specific fact.
That's also an inane point of view. There's plenty of other (better) smell tests, like does it violate the lwas of physics. It is obviously contrary to very easily obtainable data. Does it sound too good to be true.
The trouble wiht seeing if the person has something to gain is that (a) just because they are doesn't me they're wrong and (b) they could very well simply be deluded even if they have nothing to gain.