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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Take That, Capitalists! (Score 1) 205

And people living in desert regions of the world don't have easy access to sapwood...

People living in desert regions probably get their water from wells, which is relatively clean.

People living in more temperate regions where there is excess water are more likely to drink the dirty surface runoff. It's not that water is scarce, it's that it is dirty. Where I live, trees are weeds... I have to pull tree sprouts up by the dozens every year to keep my yard from turning into a rainforest. But we don't drink out of rivers or lakes here, even if they look clean. We filter it. We don't drink the tapwater unfiltered either because the government loads it up with chlorine and ammonia. Yuck. A large chunk of the developing world population (where this is most useful) lives in tropical areas with plenty of water and plenty of trees.

A solution can still be useful, even if its not useful to everybody.

Comment Isn't very helpful (Score 2) 131

Unfortunately, restricting government data requests to a broad range isn't very helpful

Of course it's not very helpful. It was never meant to be, nobody really expected it to be, and I'm sure they went to significant effort to ensure that no utility crept in by accident. As soon as the government allows or does anything, it is foregone that it won't be helpful or useful in any way. It is a tautology.

Comment Re: This is because CONservatives... (Score 0) 106

You have more than you need. I know because you have a computer and free time to post on Slashdot. Why aren't you donating 90% of your pay to hunger relief? Why don't you donate it to the Federal Government for healthcare? After all, failure to do so is murder. I guarantee they'll take your check! Don't know where to send it because you're too lazy to ask? Still murder. You could at least donate it to a local shelter. You don't need more than one set of clothes either. Or a car. You don't need the computer you're staring at right now. Liquidate and donate! Or are you selfish?

Submission + - Feds pull Google Glass user from theater for suspected piracy (theregister.co.uk)

maharvey writes: A man wearing prescription Google Glass in a theater was pulled out and questioned by agents of the MPAA and Homeland Security. No word on who tipped them off or why they were hanging out there at 10pm. The feds wouldn't let him go until they'd verified the contents of his Google Glass, yet they characterize the interaction as "voluntary." Apparently the DHS is the new MPAA enforcement arm. Does this mean that "homeland" has been redefined as "corporate?"

Comment Re:Why 2.6? Why not 3.x? (Score 1) 432

Reason 1: Because I have a mission critical business app (not maintained by me) that runs on 2.x, so that's what's installed on my machine as the default. Of course I have 3.x too, but to use it I have to specify the version explicitly. It's extra hoops to jump through.

Reason 2: Because I mostly use python as a fancy scripting language. For product development or serious lifting I use C. I don't particularly care if my version is 2.x, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Reason 2a: It's a flippin' scripting language. I don't want it to be more rigorous than it already is!

Reason 3: Everyone else at work relies on 2.6. Someone else is already supporting those 2.6 installations. If I make a project for 3.x, now I'm on the hook for getting everyone to install 3.x alongside their 2.x, I have to write docs, and when they have problems I have to handhold them through it. No thanks, I'll use what someone else is already supporting.

Reason 4: They are two different languages. I don't stop using C just because C++ and Java and C# exist. There is room on my system for multiple languages. Go ahead and develop whatever you want, but I will choose what I want to use. I have no obligation to learn a new language just because it makes you happy. You're the one who moved to a new sandbox, don't whine if others choose not to join you there.

Reason 5: Python 3 is similar enough to be confusing, but different enough to be aggravating. Really I just don't care enough. I think I'd rather move to a whole new language than wrestle the moving-target anaconda.

Comment Re:I can already hear the daleks... (Score 1) 138

Nah, it won't be the machines taking over. When machines become advanced enough, the 1% will no longer need the rest of us humans to grow their food, to make their toys, to be their servants and chauffers. Why would they pay us to do nothing? Why let us use up food and oxygen? It will be time to exterminate the teeming masses. In the name of sustainability, no doubt.

Comment Re:News for Nerds? (Score 1) 586

You and I agree on this, so don't blow a gasket. You don't want to pay for me. I don't want to pay for you. We both know that medical expenses are real and we've both taken responsibility for that.

I do have insurance (as I clearly stated), it does cover me fully if something catastrophic happens, and I can afford my deductible. Don't you think I considered the numbers before I signed up? I'm approaching 50 and there are significant medical bills in my near future. I've planned for them.

And yes I do pay, indirectly through my employer. I don't pay my premiums out of pocket, I pay them with my own sweat. It's not free and it's not cheap. And I still don't benefit from those premiums (even though they are credited to me as a taxable benefit), it all goes to paying other people's bills.

Nor am I advocating that people not buy insurance. I'm saying the PPACA is a loser's game, and it doesn't surprise me when people opt out. They didn't have insurance before for a reason; why would they want it now? There's no benefit. The system is broken, and Obamacare doesn't fix it, it only makes the brokenness permanent and rigs the game to ensure that you and I keep on paying for everyone else, like we have been all along. And anyone who buys insurance stops being a receiver and starts being a giver. That's a fool's choice. It's a protection racket, only instead of breaking our legs they threaten to bankrupt us with astronomical bills.

The solution is to control costs. We can start by dismantling the AMA's medieval "doctors guild" and reining in the lawyers. Insurance should not be necessary.

Funny, everyone complains about the disparity between the rich and the rest of us, but they fail to see that the whole point of insurance is so that the privileged can extort ridiculous amounts of money from everyone else, for services we cannot refuse. If there were no insurance, they could bill us but they wouldn't get paid. So who benefits from insurance? After all, we are still guaranteed basic ER treatment even if we can't pay. No, insurance benefits the rich, by guaranteeing their paychecks at the expense of the poor. And since the poor can't afford it, they put us on a lifetime payment plan called an insurance policy, selling us their service whether we actually use it or not.

We are told we are free. We are told that our money and our property is our own. We are told that our government answers to us. We are told we are not socialist. And most of us believe these things, though none of them are true the way we think they are, they are only illusions. The system keeps us indentured economically. It is designed to, because those who profit from it also control it. Over many decades we were lured in voluntarily, we have been giving up our rights and our freedom and our voice in exchange for toys and promises and pleasures. And that was our own fault for being selfish and greedy; though we were also tricked. But now it is becoming more and more entrenched in law, and where once we had to give these things voluntarily, now they are increasingly being taken.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...