Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:How is a captive portal site different from AOL (Score 1) 71

For profit, that is the word. Profit is what business is about, not altruism nor should it be anything but profit. In a free market capitalist economy profit motive is the most economically sound and moral motive that can exist. Not that we have free market or drugs, prostitution and this business would not be prohibited by the government.

Comment Re:How is a captive portal site different from AOL (Score 1) 71

Not a single thing in business is ever altruistic, nor should it be. Itbis just business and offering a very specific type of service must not be criminalized. If the issue is the name 'Internet' should not be applied for what Zuckerberg is selling, that I can agree with, but to prevent a company or a person from providing a very specific type of service because you disagree with the features of the service... I do not believe that any government has any real authority to prevent people from using drugs. They oppress people, the collectivists take people's rights away, that is true. But to prohibit distribution of a product or a service based on the so called 'morals' of what, of the collective? Prostitution, drugs AND this network must be legal to offer and to use.

Comment Re:Dead Wrong (Score 1) 320

Everything in this story and all comments above 3 are nonsense here. Capitalism is private ownership and operation of property. Collectivism (socialism, fascism) is the opposite of that, it is the opposite of self ownership, it is theft and redistributio, it is enslavement of the few by the many. Free market is the protection against collectivism, enforcement of the law onto the government structure to prevent the collectivist oppression.

A free market capitalist society worked well in the States in the second half of the 19th century to produce the wealthiest country on the planet, which became the biggest world creditor nation because it became the supplier of high quality yet inexpensive goods. Collectivism was then born out of the wealth created by free market capitalism and collectivism took 100 years to destroy that economy and society with the policies of theft and redistribution. When I say policies of theft I mean every form of income, wealth and inflation tax (including business regulations, which are also tax). When I say redistribution I mean every form of personal and corporate welfare, from SS, Medicare, minimum wage laws, every department, education, FDA, FHA, energy, to military industrial complex, everything.

Free market capitalism produces cheapest goods, accessible to all already, without theft and redistribution via collectivism.

Collectivism takes a working system and puts it on its knees by stripping private property ownership and self determination.

AFAIC there is no reason to promote intelligent life in this Universe without private ownership rights and without self determination. Slavery (and i consider collectivism to be slavery) is not a choice, it is lack of options. Without the option of being free from slavery I cannot in good conscious see any reason to promote intelligent life in this Universe or even just on this planet.

Comment Re:sterile sex and the star trek premise (Score 1) 320

and i see this as being on the path toward the point where money/property/power etc become immaterial..

Possibly.... but probably not before several generations have gone by who will be living heavily under the control of those who will try to hold onto the older ideals, never to realize the futility of doing so before they themselves die.

Comment Re:8 ram channels? but how meny pci-e and htx? (Score 1) 95

A VM host really only needs x12 PCIe 3 for a dual socket system, x4 for 10Gb dual channel NIC and x8 for 16Gb dual channel HBA, up it to x24 links if you need 40GbE. 8 channels is nice as it allows you to do 1TB of full speed ram in a dual socket system using relatively inexpensive 32GB DIMMs which gives you 8GB per thread which is more than enough for most workloads (you might even choose to go 512GB of ram if your workload is more CPU than RAM limited and save a good chunk of change).

Comment Re:Forced to accept cash? (Score 1) 183

Preventing death or great bodily harm is a valid legal reason to use deadly force... preventing loss of property is not. And yes, I know that there are a few jurisdictions (Texas, most notably) where it is legal to kill someone who is simply trying to steal from you, whether or not there is any evidence they are going to cause any bodily harm to anyone, but this is why I explicitly said "in general", because that is not actually the norm. A vast majority of robberies are of the "grab and dash" type... where an opportunistic robber happens to identify some property that is not adequately protected and is small enough for them to easily carry, makes a grab for it and tries to run away. If the robber has made no other threatening moves or otherwise suggested he would harm anyone if he was stopped, it is generally illegal to use lethal force to stop them.

Comment Re:Forced to accept cash? (Score 1) 183

This is why I said "in general".... Yes, I know you can do that in Texas, and of course, in all jurisdictions that I know of you *ARE* allowed to use lethal force against someone who is armed or you had reason to believe was armed, and there was some reasonable basis to conclude that they would cause harm to you if you did not surrender your property.

But if the person is not armed, or in particular has just tried to grab and trying to escape with some stolen property without ever actually threatening to harm anyone (which is a *HUGE* percentage of robberies), you are not allowed to use lethal force to stop them in most jurisdictions.

Comment Re:Forced to accept cash? (Score 1) 183

In general, deadly force may not be used to simply defend ones property, and can only be used to defend someone's life or safety. An unarmed thief who has grabbed a cash box right in front of the landlord and then tries to immediately run away is not a threat to one's life, and shooting him to stop him would be highly illegal.

Comment Re:paypal is not a bank and they can take your fun (Score 1) 183

Even if a bank account has $5, if one authorizes someone to do direct debits, they can suck out $1000.

In general, the banks will side with their own customers... at least in my experience. Having once been the victim of an online scam around 15 years ago, I was ultimately very happy with how quickly and efficiently my bank resolved the issue.

Comment Re:Forced to accept cash? (Score 1) 183

True enough.... Never happened, however. I think it's safe for me to say at this point that my roommate at the time was not the sort of person who would have done that any more than I am the sort of person who would do that to anyone else. Hypothetically speaking, if it had happened, I imagine I would have explained to the landlord what happened, given the landlord a money order, and moved out immediately, and chalked up the cost as a life lesson. However, I would not ever live with someone that I did not feel I could trust with my life, let alone my money, so the possibility of what you are describing had not even crossed my mind. Certainly with anyone that I do not know, I have always asked for a receipt if I am paying in cash.

Comment Re:paypal is not a bank and they can take your fun (Score 1) 183

Paypal cannot lock you out of accessing your own funds if Paypal does not actually have them. That is, money that you have received or has otherwise been transferred into your Paypal account is the only money that they can potentially block you from. If you routinely transfer money from Paypal to your bank account, and simply do not ever keep a large balance in your Paypal account, then the amount they could ever block you from accessing is minimal. One has to weigh for themselves the transaction fee costs of doing this with their overall level of comfort at simply keeping their money in their Paypal account. However, access to your main funds through banking or credit card access gives them no more ability to lock you out of accessing your funds than any other company that accepts electronic payments. As you said, Paypal is not a bank.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Because he's a character who's looking for his own identity, [He-Man is] an interesting role for an actor." -- Dolph Lundgren, "actor"