Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Here's a better idea (Score 1) 678

Agriculture in California happens primarily in the central valley. That is an arid part of the state would pretty much be desert if the water wasn't piped in there. So yea, if they want to claim the groundwater before any other water is piped in then I expect that the central valley will dry up in the next few months and no one will have any water. The reason they have water now is that they are allotted water rights over a certain amount that is piped in from other places.

Free markets would mean that they would get no water and they would have been stupid to create a agricultural business in the desert.
Free market is not the answer to every business question.

Comment Re:the real traitors (Score 1) 200

It could be reasonably said that these are symptoms and signs of an encroaching government which in many many cases historically has been the beginnings of a movement of government to an authoritarian government. Do you want until the military is marching in the streets mandating a curfew before saying that maybe whats going on right now is starting to look like we are headed toward that. It may not end there but it can certainly and reasonably be argued that it might be headed in that direction.

Comment Re:the real traitors (Score 1) 200

You can argue all you want about whether it is a police state or not. I tend to think these are things that are indicative of a police state but not necessarily the definition of one. But the problem here really is that the NSA's charter explicitly forbids them from domestic surveillance. Explicitly. They are using loopholes, questionable workarounds and network routing tricks in order to bypass those explicit restrictions. If that isn't against the law, it is most certainly against the intent and the spirit of the law.

Comment Re:Overrated (Score 4, Insightful) 200

Wrong. His audience is everyone. The intellectual minority and the nerd ragegasm that has been going on since this first happened has had little to no affect on actual policy. The only way these things are going to change is if the public at large understands what is going on. A few intellectuals and a basket of pseudo-intellectuals can easily be ignored and/or silenced. People need to be able to identify with what is going on and understand in a personal way how it affects them personally.

For those of us who do get what is going on, we have already known most of this for the past year and half. In order to get others on board, you need to speak to them in a way they can understand.

LW-

Comment Re: Educating Snowden (Score 5, Insightful) 200

Here is where I disagree:

If they don't understand what Snowden is telling them well... their fault. Let them face the consequences of their choices. Call it Darwinism or whatever you prefer.

If not enouh people understand this and get on board, then we ALL suffer the consequences. This nonsense isnt going to change from just bit of nerd rage that we have in the community. As any public speaker will tell you, you have to speak to people in a way that they can understand. The point of disseminating information to the public isnt to show them that you know the intricacies of it. It is to get them to understand what it is so they can make educated decisions about it.

You forget that the majority of the population and/or workforce is not involved in IT, computers or information security. they have little if nay understanding of surveillance and governing laws. They probably do not have much reason to ever think about what facebook is doing with their quips and baby pictures. But if you speak to them in a way that they can understand you, then they will more likely share your concern.

Comment Re:How is bigotry a good thing? (Score 1) 1168

A hate crime doesn't prevent you from thinking anything. It prevents you from acting on it and hurting someone based on your own stupidity.
A hate crime isn't when you dont like someone and dont open the door for them going into a building. A hate crime is when you hate someone so much that you go and beat the crap out of them or kill them not because of something they did to you but because of things about themselves that they cannot control. like who their parents are, where they were born, or who they choose to love or associate with.

Its really sad when bigots play the victim. Attacking someone over race, sex, orientation only says something bad about you and not about them.

Comment Re:Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 1168

The difference in racial bigotry & homosexual bigotry is the former is forbidden by a matter of law, something the later does not enjoy.

So what you are saying is that you think it is ok to discriminate against someone based on their ethnicity, race, sex, whatever but you dont do it because those are protected groups and it's against the law? Are you one of those people that thinks that anyone who is not religious and does not have gods law to protect them from going out and murdering and raping people at random?

Seriously? The only reason that you don't discriminate is because it's against the law. And then you wonder why we need these laws.

Businesses have the right to refuse service. Is it discrimination if the bank refuses to give a loan to someone who walks in wearing smelly rags pushing a shopping cart?

There are these things called fairness in lending laws. If that smelly dirty bum looking person can prove that they have the financial means to repay that loan, then the bank should and would make a loan to that person. If you are afraid of someone a little smelly, you probably have never come home after working a blue collar job.

Comment Re:WWJD? (Score 1) 1168

You think KKK members would purposely choose to go to a bakery owned by a group they hate and ask them to make a cake depicting that hate?
I think your scenarios is pretty ridiculous.

Once again though. a business that serves the public must serve the public.
The only exception i can think of here might have to do with being asked to create something that depicts something illegal. an illegal act or an illegal organization.

Comment Re:WWJD? (Score 1) 1168

They are providing labor to create something for someone elses celebration.
What is the celebration was for a divorce?
Or what if it was for the celebration of someones successful sex change operation?

Only one of these things is specifically mentioned in the bible and it is definitely a no-no in terms of those religions that we all know we are referring to here.
Yet for the idiots who hold these views, its the one cake in this list that they would not think twice before making.

Comment Re:WWJD? (Score 1) 1168

Sure you're celebrating it. You're making a cake to honor it, you're having your bed n' breakfast host it, you're taking pictures to commemorate it (to name a few of the most popular examples that have resulted in lawsuits).

Sure, someone is celebrating. But the baker isn't celebrating anything the wedding. they are only celebrating the money the get for doing the job. The baker is celebrating as much as mcdonalds celebrates that they helped me to celebrate my morning poop after feeding me breakfast.

Comment Re:WWJD? (Score 1) 1168

This is basically what the law says. you can create a private club with private members and you can be as discriminatory or exclusive as you want.

If you have a business that serves the public then it must serve the public at large. this means a business that is registered to serve the public cannot discriminate against anyone in the public.

you want to be an asshole and just have a club with your friends that have the same set of panties twisted in the same style of knot in your pants. Have at it.
We can all point at you and laugh when we see you struggling to walk down the street with your mental burdens.

  If you are running a company in the public square that serves the public, then you need to grow up and treat every single individual equally.

Submission + - OEMs Allowed To Lock Secure Boot In Windows 10 Computers (arstechnica.com) 1

jones_supa writes: Hardware that sports the "Designed for Windows 8" logo requires machines to support UEFI Secure Boot. When the feature is enabled, the core software components used to boot the machine are verified for correct cryptographic signatures, or the system refuses to boot. This is a desirable security feature, because it protects from malware sneaking into the boot process. However, it has an issue for alternative operating systems, because it's likely they won't have a signature that Secure Boot will authorize. No worries, because Microsoft also mandated that every system must have a UEFI configuraton setting to turn the protection off, allowing booting other operating systems. This situation is bound to change now. At its WinHEC hardware conference in Shenzhen, China, Microsoft said that the setting to allow Secure Boot to be turned off will become optional when Windows 10 arrives. Hardware can be "Designed for Windows 10", and offer no way to opt out of the Secure Boot lock down. The choice to provide the setting or not, will be up to the original equipment manufacturer.

Submission + - Government Spies Admit that Cyber Armageddon is Unlikely

Nicola Hahn writes: NSA director Mike Rogers spoke to a Senate Committee yesterday, admonishing them that the United States should bolster its offensive cyber capabilities to deter attacks. Never mind that deterrence is problematic if you can’t identify the people who attacked you.

In the past a speech by a spymaster like Rogers would have been laced with hyperbolic intimations of the End Times. Indeed, for almost a decade mainstream news outlets have conveyed a litany of cyber doomsday scenarios on behalf of ostensibly credible public officials. So it’s interesting to note a recent statement by the U.S. intelligence community that pours a bucket of cold water over all of this. According to government spies the likelihood of a cyber Armageddon is “remote.” And this raises some unsettling questions about our ability to trust government officials and why they might be tempted to fall back on such blatant hyperbole.

Slashdot Top Deals

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Working...