Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:so what? (Score 1) 248

You're mixing up capability with likelihood. Total risk is the product of the two. The U.S. has had nuclear-capable ICBMs for over 50 years now, but has never used them. So while it has had the capability for a long time, the proven likelihood that it'll use them is very low, even when it's been provoked. The reason people (not just the U.S.) is concerned about North Korea's capability is because its leadership is extremely erratic and unpredictable, so the likelihood it would actually use ICBMs is a lot higher than existing nuclear powers'.

On the contrary, NK has had nuclear weapons for quite a while and has never used them beyond testing. As with any mutual-assured destruction weapon, showing a capability for something does not indicate anything about willingness to use them at any time except a doomsday scenario.

Depending on the success of this test, and certainly prior to this point, NK only had MAD capability against its immediate neighbors, China, South Korea, and Japan. The only deterrents they had against US invasion were indirect, through threats on US allies. A working ICBM gives them a better ability to deter the type of regime change we pulled in Iraq.

Comment Re: Well, he did admit to breaking Swedish law... (Score 1) 325

The charge has never been rape. That's just the way it has been reported in the media. The "crime" he is charged with in Sweden has no equivalent in the UK or US and the woman was pressured into making it by the police once they figured out who the complaint was against. She only wanted a STD test done.

You keep saying this, and people keep pointing out that penetrating a sleeping woman without her consent, after she's told you "no", is rape in not just Sweden, but both the UK, and the US (not that the latter is relevant). At some point will you admit that fact?

Comment Re:should be interesting (Score 2) 325

Ok, I keep hearing "rape" being brought up but, the charge is not quite what it seems. The women in question did not go to the police with charges of sexual assault. One of them discovered that the condom came off, during consensual sex, and after she was unable to locate him, went to the police to locate him for the purpose of taking a STD test.

That'd be the sexual assault charge. The rape charge is from the other situation where he penetrated a woman while she was sleeping, knowing she did not consent, having been explicitly told "no" before she went to sleep. That's the one that the UK courts said "yes, that's rape, even under British law."

Comment Re:Censor the censors? (Score 1) 666

It depends on the triggers in question. Trigger warnings about rapes and such - yes, they're a good thing. Trigger warnings about things like mentioning slavery, because supposedly someone is "forced to relive the suffering of their ancestors" and is "traumatized" by it, are bullshit.

Why is that bullshit? Not that I think that situation has ever actually happened, but you don't believe in educating people? You think kids should sign up for a class and not be given a syllabus, and have no idea what they're going to learn? Why is it 'bullshit' to give people more information?

In many cases, those trigger warnings are also implicit. In a sense that if you're going to go to a history class, then, yeah, you can be expected to deal with historical topics such as slavery or treating women as property - this shouldn't require a trigger warning.

My music history class never touched on either of those. Perhaps not every history class is the same, and people should know in advance what the class will cover?

Similarly, if you're going to a stand-up comedy, you can expect to hear jokes involving ethnic stereotypes and gender roles, for example - and this shouldn't require a trigger warning, either.

Not that it has. Cleese was complaining about colleges, not stand-up comedy shows. Which is like a college professor complaining about stand-up shows. Maybe they should stick to worrying about their own jobs?

Either way, college kids who want their university to shut down an event because they dislike an invited guest is a situation where we can assume that they know what they expect to hear (and be offended by) in advance. If they don't actually know but still want to shut it down because they don't like the person specifically, then it's pure ad hominem on their part, and should be dismissed with prejudice without wasting any time on it.

And they have been, and what's your point? Cleese was saying that they shouldn't even be allowed to ask for it to be shut down, because the very idea of shutting things down is so offensive to him that he needs a blanket and nice cup of tea. He's asking for them to be censored because they asked for other events to be censored. How about just saying "no, you can hold your own event?" Why does everyone, on both sides immediately jump to "we cannot allow them to speak"?

Comment Re:Censor the censors? (Score 1) 666

You know what's an easy way to avoid "triggering" and offensive terms? Don't go to stand-up comedy. Especially when you know in advance that the comic in question is offensive to you.

Ah, so we're in agreement that people should be informed in advance of whatever triggering or offensive things may occur, and if they can't deal, they can bugger off? In other words, trigger warnings are good things?

Comment Censor the censors? (Score 1) 666

So people on college campuses are asking for things like trigger warnings and avoiding offensive terms, and the response is to get incensed about "censorship" and say that those people shouldn't be allowed to ask for those things?

For example, from TFA:

"[Psychiatrist Robin Skynner] said: 'If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behavior,'" Cleese said. "And when you're around super-sensitive people, you cannot relax and be spontaneous because you have no idea what's going to upset them next."

So Cleese is essentially saying he's super-sensitive about super-sensitive people since he can't relax around them, and he wants them silenced so he can feel better. I thought the Brits were supposed to be masters of irony.

Comment Re:Feminists deplatform Richard Dawkins from NCSS (Score 0) 666

Great video that explains the situation:

Dawkins was deplatformed for twitting this satirical (and hilarious) video.

Feminists Love Islamists

Please, everybody here, take an active stance and post that video on your twitter and/or facebook accounts. Let the feminists/Islamists know that there censorship efforts are counter productive.

(i) No, I'm not watching some half hour video of someone talking. I can read faster than he can talk. Give me a transcript if you want your ideas spread.

(ii) What's a "feminist/Islamist"? That's like saying "atheist/Evangelical".

(iii) It's "their".

Comment Re:seems conceited (Score 1) 412

And as far as his comments about black-body radiation from such a structure, it doesn't seem terribly unreasonable for a civilization capable of such engineering such a megastructure in the first place, to have figured out how to convert heat energy into something more usable/consumable.

I think the easiest explanation for that comes from the premise of the Dyson Sphere itself - you're building the thing because you want to capture the solar output energy, so simply putting an optical shell around it and having it radiate that energy in IR doesn't actually help you. Obviously, you're using solar panels and/or mirrors to capture the energy and then retransmitting it to your preferred processing site. Maybe you've got bunches of microwave transmitters on the surface beaming high power (but narrow and not visible from Earth) rays to orbiting factories that are running particle accelerators to make antimatter for your spaceships. Maybe they're even beaming it out beyond that solar system, but to another one that's not in line with the Earth.

The "sun generates X energy, so a Dyson Sphere should radiate X energy as IR" incorrectly assumes that you build the sphere for funsies and never attempt to use that energy.

Comment Re:Now... (Score 1) 412

There's another possibility that's just as far out, and would explain the missing IR.

It's a traffic hub for small FTL ships.

While an interesting idea, you'd have the same problem as the comets - half a million "small" FTL ships that are 200 kilometers wide, except that's a huge-ass ship, so you're really talking about many billions of reasonably sized ships. It takes a lot of such ships to block an appreciable amount of the solar output.

Comment Re:Press space to wipe and reenable OS verificatio (Score 1) 167

Sorry for the (partially) offtopic reply, but I just saw your question about Trusted Network Connect here.

I haven't been hearing much new news about Trusted Computing or Trusted Network Connect recently. Ordinarily I'd consider that a good sign that it wasn't moving forwards, however it's looking more like a successful slow-quiet-rollout strategy. Both Microsoft and Google make the Trust chip mandatory on phones, and Microsoft has declared that it's mandatory on all desktops and other devices in a few months. all new devices and computers must implement TPM 2.0 and ship with TPM support enabled , starting one year after the Win10 release. (Apparently August of this year.) The whole design of Win10 is to force rolling updates. It could get ugly if Microsoft simply pushes out all sorts of Trusted Computing crap as non-declinable "routine updates".

The phone lockdowns are definitely leading the way. Microsoft says phone manufacturers must prohibit users from turning off secureboot, and it looks like Google is also enforcing enforcing secure boot which (so far) permitting you to then drop to an eternal-nag non-Trusted mode. Sigh. Not good. I wouldn't be surprised if desktops also use a transition step of enforcing an eternal-nag-mode if you try to opt-out of Trusted Computing. At some point support can simply be ended for the nag-mode option. Then there's no opt-out at all.


Comment Re: RF? (Score 4, Insightful) 935

So instead let's just not have safety devices because they might fail.

It's called a gun lock... every responsible owner has one for each gun or rifle they have. Gun lockers/safes are good options, too.

One of the major points in the Supreme Court's decision in DC v. Heller was over trigger-locks - Heller, the allegedly "responsible gun owner" didn't want to use a trigger lock, which DC required. SCOTUS held by a narrow majority that the requirement was unconstitutional because it made it "impossible" to use the gun for self-defense.

Comment Re:In other words, a software patent (Score 1) 73

Yeah you're wrong on every point. That means you're trying.

... says the guy who cherry-picked and only responded to a few points here and there. You're conceding that I'm right on all the other ones, yes? For example, did you follow that link to Google Patents and see all of the thousands and thousands of issued European software patents? Or are you still a "denier==terrorist" per your signature?

>>that means that the only way to really protect your business software.

Yeah, you protect your business by providing excellent software which is itself a natural barrier to entrance.

I notice you quoted me out of context and even modified the quote. Let's see the whole thing:

... that means that the only way to really protect your business software, other than patents, is to require proprietary formats that aren't interoperable. And that's bad for consumers.

You completely disregarded the entire point about proprietary formats, which are bad for consumers. It's almost like you don't actually care about the public... a funny position for someone allegedly arguing against giant corporations.

If you look at the world of IDEs, people have very strong preferences for one over the other. There are no software patents involved protecting anyone. In fact, even giving away the stuff for free is NOT enough to make enough people switch from IntelliJ to Eclipse, for example, to put IntelliJ out of business. All with no software patents.

And what do those have? Proprietary formats! Just like I said, and you excised from my quote. Most people recognize that those are bad, and would prefer to freely be able to port their work between competing products.

That's a figure from the patent, it's not what the patent covers. The only part of the patent that has legal weight are the claims

The information provided in the drawings is exactly isomorphic tot he information provided in the claims. Patent lawyers know people have a hard time reading claims (by design.. patent language is a product of a priesthood which self-consciously seeks to protect itself by bartering in obscuritanism ) and like to make this argument also. If you read the claims and look at the diagrams, they are describing the same set of affairs, encryption keys and all.

Translation: "You're right, Theaetetus. I was wrong when I claimed they were patenting a flow chart. They're actually patenting an implementation recited by the claims, and I don't know how to read those, so I was confused and pointed to the block diagram instead."

No problem, and I'm happy to help you learn to read patent claims. They're actually not confusing at all, if you take your time. Honestly, the only words you may need to learn are "comprising" and "consisting".

You're just undermining your position by revealing that a humdrum and natural application of encryption keys (what else are they for except exchanging information securely over a public network) is now off limits to everyone but Dropbox.

Nope, I'm tearing apart your allegation that the patent prevents all file-sharing. You've now moved those goalposts to "a natural application of encryption keys" which certainly wasn't anywhere in your original post. Don't worry, we can all see the holes in the turf from where they used to be and will avoid tripping over them.

Maybe you'll eventually even move the goalposts to what the patent actually covers, rather than claiming it covers the world... Oh, wait:

To wit: there is no set of classes, no interaction between any objects and no alternative architecture of any kind which is permitted by this patent.

You're now claiming this patent covers any "interaction between objects".
Oooookay. Well, give you credit for doubling down. Not sure if it's going to actually convince anyone, though.

Slashdot Top Deals

"One lawyer can steal more than a hundred men with guns." -- The Godfather