Slashdot Mirror


User: Cederic

Cederic's activity in the archive.

Stories
0
Comments
11,787
First seen
Last seen
Profile
(view on slashdot.org)

Comments · 11,787

  1. Re:and then block porn / 3rd party candidates / fr on GCHQ Planning UK-Wide DNS Firewall (thestack.com) · · Score: 1

    You're the cuntface that started throwing words like 'bile' around and using capitals in response to a factual, calm and constructive comment.

    Having firmly established your intellectual credentials at the level of 'dehydrated slug' you really expect me to take your points apart one by one?

    No. Go lick a cow, it's about your level.

  2. Re:and then block porn / 3rd party candidates / fr on GCHQ Planning UK-Wide DNS Firewall (thestack.com) · · Score: 1

    The problem is that the internet has too many idiots, and I have too little time.

    You're one of the idiots.

  3. Re:and then block porn / 3rd party candidates / fr on GCHQ Planning UK-Wide DNS Firewall (thestack.com) · · Score: 1

    You may want to seek assistance from an expert mental health professional.

  4. Re: Does anyone speak technical here anymore? on A Teenage Hacker Figured Out How To Get Free Data On His Phone (vice.com) · · Score: 1

    "story/16/09/14/2242216/" is not an URL. It's a path. In common parlance, it can interpretably be described as a folder.

    understand the difference between a folder and an URL

    It's easy to berate people while posting as AC. But I can understand why you don't put your own pseudonym - see above.

  5. Re: Does anyone speak technical here anymore? on A Teenage Hacker Figured Out How To Get Free Data On His Phone (vice.com) · · Score: 1

    It''s almost as though he used a metaphor to translate something technical into straightforward English that most people can easily comprehend.

    Ok, he probably did so lazily, using the same metaphor everybody else uses. Why are you so upset by this?

  6. Re:Not going to happen on Edward Snowden Makes 'Moral' Case For Presidential Pardon (theguardian.com) · · Score: 1

    While true from some perspectives, less so from others, and also irrelevant to the history of the US Presidential 'pardon'.

  7. Re:and then block porn / 3rd party candidates / fr on GCHQ Planning UK-Wide DNS Firewall (thestack.com) · · Score: 1

    The SNP have more representation in Westminster per vote than any other party. Maybe more than every other party ever.

    So no, getting more votes in Scotland than everybody else counts for fuck all. It's still not democratic.

    I do also seem to recall them losing the vote they really cared about. No wonder Sturgeon's scared shitless of calling another referendum, for all her bleating about the supposed need for one.

  8. Re: I think... on Edward Snowden Makes 'Moral' Case For Presidential Pardon (theguardian.com) · · Score: 1

    I honestly can't tell whether you're talking about Obama or Snowden.

  9. Re:Not going to happen on Edward Snowden Makes 'Moral' Case For Presidential Pardon (theguardian.com) · · Score: 1

    The US never had a monarchy

    How bemusingly irrelevant. The country from whom the US took the concept of pardons was a monarchy, and was when it adopted the legality of pardons.

    Your argument is unsubstantiated. Go play in the street.

    What sort of evidence do you want exactly? Provision of legal pardons is mentioned in the Magna Carta in 1215 and the US Declaration of Independence is reasonably well known, just how fucking far back are you looking for here?

  10. What I don't understand is: only 120 M Euro? That's 20 cents per person so it's easy on taxpayers but is it enough to buy and operate the infrastructure?

    You need to look at it like this: Who gets the 120M?

      Juncker could never get the 120 Billion Euro that would be needed to do it properly, so had to compromise. Someone still benefits.

  11. Re:and then block porn / 3rd party candidates / fr on GCHQ Planning UK-Wide DNS Firewall (thestack.com) · · Score: 1

    Well, apply recursion to the process and the simple answer is 'all of them'.

  12. Re:and then block porn / 3rd party candidates / fr on GCHQ Planning UK-Wide DNS Firewall (thestack.com) · · Score: 1

    Well, nationally too. The SNP don't make it into fourth place nationally. They're barely ahead of the Green party ffs.

  13. Re:Why is this even an issue? on Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg On 'Napalm Girl' Photo: 'We Don't Always Get it Right' (theguardian.com) · · Score: 1

    When a quarter of the planet's population gather in the same place, are you really trying to claim it's not a public place?

  14. The intent of the image is to cause disgust and horror.

    Sorry, I disagree. The intent of Nick Ut is known probably only to him but I'd guess he wasn't there to cause disgust and horror, he was there to document.

    The entire power of the image is that it hasn't been manipulated, isn't artificially portrayed to cause emotion; it shows reality, and any emotional reaction is because of that reality, not the image of it.

    This is one reason war photography is amongst the most honest form of art, let alone photography. Sure, you get the posed images, the action replays, the entirely faked activities.. but the best photographs, the ones that hurt, the ones that reach deep inside you.. they're very very real.

  15. Well, mainly because there are no common-sense policies such as "no child nudity".

    When everything is binary, nothing has nuance. That way lies intolerance, authoritarianism and death. There's no common fucking sense to that.

  16. Re:Cut the bullshit, facebook. on Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg On 'Napalm Girl' Photo: 'We Don't Always Get it Right' (theguardian.com) · · Score: 1

    Wait.. Twitter makes money?

  17. Re:Wonder why? on Digital Wallets Have Yet To Catch On, JPMorgan Executive Says (reuters.com) · · Score: 1

    Hacking? Privacy?

    I'll let others be the early adopters on this one.

  18. Re:Because it's unnecessarily complex on Digital Wallets Have Yet To Catch On, JPMorgan Executive Says (reuters.com) · · Score: 1

    Quite often. Wallet, keys; everything else is optional.

    I do tend to include clothing though. Just not always.

  19. Re:Wonder why? on Digital Wallets Have Yet To Catch On, JPMorgan Executive Says (reuters.com) · · Score: 1

    Yeah, this is why I always use a credit card for online purchases.

    Give me protection against hacking, fraud and other illicit attempts to steal my money and privacy and I may consider mobile payments. Until then, it's an easy choice.

  20. Re:So... on Steve Wozniak May Swap His Tesla For A Chevy Bolt (siliconbeat.com) · · Score: 1

    I don't know, are they ready to acknowledge the top engineers on the Apple II?

  21. Re:A real comparison? on Steve Wozniak May Swap His Tesla For A Chevy Bolt (siliconbeat.com) · · Score: 1

    Yes, but you've had to drive a hybrid for 13 years.

    Money isn't everything.

  22. Well technically your shares were never worth that extra 5Ã anyway, so really the market has merely corrected itself and you haven't lost out. You just didn't make an unfair gain.

    Not to mention your utter fucking stupidity if your retirement fund is so desperately tied to a single share that a tiny movement in price damages you.

  23. Re:The spirit of the law on EU Finance Ministers Line Up Behind $21B Tax Ruling Against Apple (herald-dispatch.com) · · Score: 1

    Look at Apple's net profit margins compared to pretty much everybody else in the same industries.

    Don't try and convince me they don't gouge their customers. Their customers seem content with it, which is their choice, but it's still very blatant.

  24. Re:Ex post facto on EU Finance Ministers Line Up Behind $21B Tax Ruling Against Apple (herald-dispatch.com) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a remarkable display of ignorance and stupidity. I've seldom seen so much wrong in one comment.

    Apple has to jack up their prices to pay for this huge financial hit. Every future consumer of Apple products is hurt.

    The 'hit' is on their profits. That means that they can leave prices untouched and still not lose money.

    Since this is a tax payment it'll also be offset against any tax they pay when repatriating their profits back to the US. So it's not even additional cost to them, it's just payment to Ireland instead of the US Government.

    The only people that lose out from this are the US taxpayers.

    The EU gains power from a legal precedent, which it will use to abuse other companies.

    The EU were already enforcing the treaty obligations against state subsidies anyway, including ones comparable to this.

    So no new legal precedent.

    Also no abuse. The only abuse in this whole sordid tale is Apple's abuse of the tax laws.

    The EU gains $21 billion, equal to 9% of Ireland's GDP.

    No. Ireland gains $21 billion. Although Ireland is in the EU, none of that money goes directly to the EU.

    (Some of it will likely get there indirectly).

    This money will be used to grow the EU bureaucracy, enabling it to further abuse everyone living in the EU.

    Holy shit. I voted for the UK to leave the EU and even I don't describe the EU as abusing everyone living here. Since the money wont reach the EU, no, it wont expand the bureaucracy.

    Another tax haven, where decent people can escape thieving government, is lost.

    Decent people couldn't take advantage of the special terms Apple negotiated, so nothing is lost. Apple is a company and not people, and is pretty fucking far from decent, so again nothing is lost.

    And you consider that a good thing.

    Hell yes.
    Absolutely.
    Completely.
    It's awesome. Fantastic. Magnificent.

    Any other questions?

  25. Re:Unions could make a comeback on When Your Boss Is An Algorithm (ft.com) · · Score: 1

    - Corruption -- what political organization isn't corrupt? I'd deal with a low level of corruption if I were getting something that benefits me.

    I now understand why you like unions. Some of us are honest, so fuck you and fuck your union.

    Mediocrity

    I don't need to be a super-genius to see the damage that union pay bargaining causes. Mediocre people getting the same wage as high productivity staff. Mediocre people getting paid more than someone far better than them purely because they've been in the role for longer. Sub-mediocre people not being sacked because of the union.

    Fuck that. My employer has to attract staff to work for the company. Pay is one of those attractors, but not the only one. If the total package and working conditions don't meet my expectations then I can and will move on. My employer knows this, and works to prevent it.

    This one confuses me

    I'm not a monkey. I can pick up a chair and carry it. I can move my computer from one desk to another. I can safely use electrical equipment.

    Why would I wait hours or days for someone to do that shit for me? Just why the fuck should some union of which I'm not even a member dictate what I can and can't do?

    I would love to work in a unionized workplace, just for the convenience of paying a collective bargaining unit to ensure I get a fair salary and have some leverage against employers.

    I'm fucking delighted that I don't work in a unionised workplace, where people let collective bargain remove any accountability or responsibility from them to do their job properly. It's awesome. People actually do the right thing, because they want to, and come to work to make a difference. The company succeeds and we all get paid well.

    It's marvellous. You should try it some time.