Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Disturbing (Score 1) 331

Thanks. I seem to be the one with an outdated mindset. I didn't know about that rule of thumb. Back when I went to school, I got by with a little help from my parents but mostly with a scholarship, loans, and a nearly full-time job. But tuition at an Ivy League school was only $5K/year and my starting salary after I got out was around $20K so even getting loans for the entire tuition would have matched your rule.

I'm glad you were able to buck the trend and find a way to pay for college that did not leave you in a financial hole you could not escape from. I still think this is not possible for the majority of students today. Sure, anyone may have been able to get the situation you found but there are not enough situations like that to go around for everyone. Having a system that puts so many college graduates into an inescapable financial black hole is very damaging to our society. It is like eating our seed corn.

When I went to school, situations like yours were open to almost everyone, even people going to Ivy League Universities.

Comment Re:Disturbing (Score 1) 331

Perhaps your mindset on this is a little outdated. I know mine was and that is the heart of the problem. For many decades student loans made sense. They were a terrific investment because the increase in your earning potential from going to college was fantastic. It paid for the loans many times over.

Unfortunately, both sides of the equation have changed drastically which has really screwed over the majority (I am guessing) of college students. On one hand, the cost of college has gone through the roof, vastly outpacing inflation and on the other hand, the ROI for going to college has tanked.

Taking out loans to go to college used to be the best investment you could make. Now you are likely to get screwed over. My editorial take on this is that it is a perfect example of capitalism run rampant. At various stages in the system, people have found ways to take advantage of (i.e. monetize) the general perception that taking out loans to go to college was a great investment. They did this by turning it into a lousy investment. It is no different from fleecing neophytes in the stock market.

Education used to be the cornerstone of the American Dream. Turning it into a terrible investment is extremely toxic to our society.

This is related to another result of extreme capitalism:

No matter how small and cheap and crappy something is, someone will figure out a way to make the same thing smaller and cheaper and crappier.

Comment Re:VERY POSITIVE: Systemd is well-modularized (Score 1) 928

All they've done in systemd is write C code to start up services that used to be started instead by shell scripts and added the ability to make dependency resolution automatic so that services are only started when they need to be.

If that had been all then there would not be this huge controversy. You are describing a very stripped down version of uselessd which is already a stripped down version of systemd. You are ignoring 98% of what is most objectionable about systemd by reducing it to the least controversial component.

ISTM such vast oversimplifications add fuel to the fire and further polarize the debate.

Comment Re:Prison time (Score 4, Informative) 275

No, it's called "asset forfeiture" and it does happen far too often. Hell, happening once is far too often.

In the US there are two kinds of asset forfeiture, criminal and civil:

There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Approximately half of all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil, although many of those are filed in parallel to a related criminal case. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third-party claimant. [...]

In civil cases, the owner need not be judged guilty of any crime; [...] In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but I think the type of forfeiture you so strenuously (and correctly) object to is called civil asset forfeiture or civil forfeiture for short.

Comment Re:Some Sense Restored? (Score 1) 522

The problem with supporting multiple init systems is that each package that provides a daemon needs to support all of them.

I agree with you in theory. In this case SysV init has been around for ages so SysV init scripts already exist for almost all packages. Just don't remove those and there is very little additional work required to maintain the SysV init scripts.

Yes, new packages will need to support both for a while, but this is a tiny fraction of the work to create and maintain a new service. It is a very small price to pay in order to get some breathing room and a graceful transition period.

It will give people a chance to put down the torches and pitchforks for a while. One of the biggest objections to systemd was that it was being rammed down our throats whether we wanted it or not, whether it was ready or not, etc. Look at Pulse Audio. After a few painful years, it was finally ready for non-beta use. Systemd should be given a similar incubation period during which people can easily choose to use it or not.

On a more poetic note::

Before the creation of Arda (The World), Melkor was the most powerful of the Ainur. Because of his unique station, he sought to create wills in the manner of his own Creator, so he alone would venture sometimes into the Void in search of the Flame Imperishable, the Secret Fire, which would grant him this ability. But he never found it, as it is with Eru only. He had sought to fill the Void with sentient beings and was dissatisfied with Eru's abandonment of it. Instead, in what he hoped would be an expression of his own originality and creativity, he contended with Eru (God) in the Music of the Ainur, introducing what he perceived to be themes of his own.

Unlike his fellow Ainu Aule, Melkor was too proud to admit that his creations were simply discoveries wholly made possible by, and therefore "belonging" to, Eru. Instead, Melkor aspired to the level of Eru, the true Creator of all possibilities.

During the Great Music of the Ainur, Melkor attempted to alter the Music and introduced what he believed to be elements purely of his own design. As part of these efforts, he drew many weaker-willed Ainur to him, creating a counter to Eru's main theme. Ironically, these attempts did not truly subvert the Music, but only elaborated Eru's original intentions: the Music of Eru took on depth and beauty precisely because of the strife and sadness Melkor's disharmonies (and their rectification) introduced.

Since the Great Music of the Ainur stood as template for all of history and all of material creation in the Middle-earth cycle (it was first sung before Time, and then the universe was made in its image), there was an aspect of everything in Middle-earth that came of Melkor's malign influence; everything had been "corrupted". Tolkien elaborates on this in Morgoth's Ring, drawing an analogy between the One Ring, into which Sauron committed much of his power, and all of Arda -- "Morgoth's Ring" -- which contains and is corrupted by the residue of Melkor's power until the Remaking of the World.

Comment Different tools for different jobs (Score 1) 365

Alan Perlis said:

Everything should be built top-down, except the first time.

The work on the Linux kernel by Linus is essentially the "first time" which is why he prefers C. It can be used as a bottom-up language. OOP and C++ are top-down. The BOSS-MOOL group are rewriting something that already exists so they are using a top-down approach. Both Linus and the BOSS-MOOL group are using the right tool for the job. The jobs are different so the right tool is different.

Comment Re:Fermion that is its own antiparticle (Score 2) 99

what does it mean for a particle to be its own antiparticle?

In theoretical calculations if you reverse the charge (C), the parity (P), and time (T) of a particle, you get its antiparticle. A simpler (and less accurate) way of saying this is that antiparticles are normal particles traveling backward in time. This is not just a novelty, it is important for doing quantum field theory calculations (see Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretation).

So a particle is its own antiparticle if you reverse all three (CPT) and get the same thing. As the OP said, this is not unusual. It is only unusual for fermions. If two of them collide with each other then they can be annihilated and turn into another particle-antiparticle pair, just like photons can. Since they are neutral (I *think*, due to C symmetry) they don't attract each other like positrons and electrons do so you have to make special arrangements to get them to collide.

Does that mean that they're neutral to matter and anti-matter, or do they still somehow fall into one of those categories?

If there were an anti-matter universe then the photons there would be the same as the photons here. Same thing with Majorana fermions. I guess you could say they are both matter and anti-matter. You could also say they are neither matter nor anti-matter.

Comment Re:PROOF (Score 1) 275

I'd mod you up if I had points.

Yes, it is a publicity stunt, and yes, it won't convince people who are invested in the conspiracy theory, and yes, it does not prove the original photo was authentic. But as you said, it does give a plausible explanation for the lighting in the original photo.

Comment Re:When the cat's absent, the mice rejoice (Score 1) 286

The dissenting judge disagrees with the majority opinion. It is ridiculous to use the dissenting opinion to explain the majority opinion. Agent Logan was legally able to perform what would normally be an Unconstitutional search when the search was restricted to military personnel only. I said your common sense should have told you that military personal don't have the same Constitutional rights as normal citizens. I also provided a link to a page that described this in detail. Therefore your insinuation that I was relying solely on common sense is another fabrication. If you disagree and think that military personnel have the same Constitutional rights as normal citizens, fine, let's discuss it. But don't insinuate I was relying on common sense when I provided a link (and you could just as easily use Google to get the same results).

Regardless of which laws were used by the defense to throw out the results of a search that was clearly Unconstitutional [see below], the following facts remain:

  1. Military personnel have almost no rights regarding search and seizure.
  2. Agent Logan used these same standards to search "all computers in the state of Washington" without probable cause or a warrant.
  3. The majority opinion said there was a need to deter future violations because there was evidence of widespread and repeated violations. (For goodness sake, the government was arguing it had a right to perform such massive searches. If they eventually prevail is it conceivable that they would stop conducting such searches?).
  4. Your statement "the evidence was thrown out because a military investigator found the material" implies that if someone who was not in the military had performed the search then it would have been legal.

The fundamental question is whether the US Government has the right to search all of the computers in the United States without a warrant and without probable cause. The majority ruled they do not. The choice to use the Posse Comitatus Act was made by the defense attorneys, not the judges. It is usually much cheaper to avoid arguing things on Constitutional grounds. But the use of the PCA by the defense does not at all imply that no Constitutional rights were violated.

It boggles my mind that anyone would honestly think such a search was Constitutional as long as it was performed by non-military personnel. What possible use is the 4th Amendment if such searches were legal? If you really want to argue that such a broad search of normal people would be Constitutional then let's do it. Don't hide behind implications and insinuations.

Comment Re:When the cat's absent, the mice rejoice (Score 4, Interesting) 286

The evidence was thrown out because a military investigator found the material, not because it was an unconstitutional search.

Nice try but that is not what the fine article says. It says:

The 2-1 majority rejected the government's argument that the military is allowed to monitor and search all computers in a state without prior knowledge that a computer's owner is even in the military.

Even a modicum of common sense should tell you that people in military service do not have the same Constitutional rights as the general public even without the huge hint in the fine article. From Does the Constitution apply to rights of military members?:

But in other respects, even basic rights against unreasonable searches and seizures are virtually non-existent [for military personnel].

The problem was not that a person in the military was conducting a search that would have been Constitutional had a non-military person conducted it. The problem was that the search was performed using the lax (and generally Unconstitutional) standards the military uses for searching its own but it was conducted on an entire state. If the government wins this case then they will have a right to search all of your computers without any warrant or any probable cause just by asking a member of the military to conduct the search and then hand off anything interesting to the police of FBI.

Please stop just making shit up in order to twist a story into fitting your political agenda.

Comment Re:You have all been trained to accept this as nor (Score 2) 286

AC:

How is it a violation of rights or privacy to search a search engine for files that you deliberately make public for the purpose of sharing.

FTFA:

Using software called RoundUp from his office in Georgia, Logan searched for "any computers located in Washington state sharing known child pornography on the Gnutella file-sharing network," the ruling states.

Dear AC, I am not familiar with a search engine called "RoundUp". Will you please provide a link? It looks useful.

More FTFA:

The 2-1 majority rejected the government's argument that the military is allowed to monitor and search all computers in a state without prior knowledge that a computer's owner is even in the military.

Clearly the military has much fewer Constitutional restrictions when they investigate military personnel. This case is about whether the military can investigate the general public with that same lack of Constitutional restraint.

If the court sided with NCIS agent Logan (Logan Cale?) then unless the ruling was overturned by a higher court, the US Government could use military personnel to scan all computers in the US and simply turn over anything suspicious to the local authorities. I don't know why you think it would be a good idea to give the US government the right to constantly scan all of your computers, smart phones, and tablets. I prefer that such searches stay illegal without a proper search warrant.

Comment TFS is utter bullshit (Score 4, Insightful) 196

Lem wrote about all kinds of possible futures. A small percentage do match the description in the summary but the vast majority conflict with it. Most of his work is about reaching out and exploring in various ways. His work is so varied it is difficult to come up with one theme that describes it all. If I were to try to come up with major themes then I would give at least these:

  1. Alien life is so different from our own that despite our best efforts we are unable to communicate with it or understand it.
  2. Mechanical life begets (creates) biological life which begets mechanical life, and so on. The origins are lost in the shrouds of pre-history.
  3. People are mostly idiots and don't realize it. Present company not excepted.

Comment Re:You cannot patent an idea (Score 1) 118

Therefore Microsoft is right in claiming that software is in fact like a physical machine (since the 1s and 0s of software are real whereas your abstract ideas can't be clearly represented like that) that controls another physical machine (the CPU).

Fine. Then the patent only covers one configuration of ones and zeros that implement the algorithm (corresponding to one physical machine), not every possible configuration of ones and zeros that implement the algorithm (which correspond to an infinite number of different machines). This means the patent is only good for their source code with their compiler with their set of compiler optimizations on one specific CPU architecture. They would be far better off using copyright instead.

The leap you make from protecting one configuration of ones and zeros that implement an algorithm to protecting every possible configuration of ones and zeros that implement the same algorithm is exactly the part of the argument that I characterize as "stupid and ill-informed".

Seriously, how is protecting every possible way to implement an algorithm (on a computer) any different from protecting the algorithm itself (on a computer)? The judges in that case can hide behind the excuse of being completely ignorant of how computers work. What's your excuse?

Comment Re: Are you fucking serious? Tell me you aren't! (Score 1) 198

Thanks for the link. That paper discusses a system that has C and A but not P. They are looking at fast transactions on a distributed system that is never partitioned (no hardware or network failures). When parts of the system go down they will still have to choose between availability and strong consistency. They tell us they chose C over A:

In its current implementation, Calvin handles hardware failures by recovering the crashed machine from its most recent complete snapshot and then replaying all more recent transactions. Since other nodes within the same replica may depend on remote reads from the afflicted machine, however, throughput in the rest of the replica is apt to slow or halt until recovery is complete.

If they were able to provide C and A and P then it would be huge news. Most of our current databases both RDBMS and NoSQL would instantly be obsolete. Most database design over the past decade or more has involved using different tradeoffs between C, A, and P. If someone really found a way to provide all three at once then all of that work would have been for naught.

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Working...