Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Oh, Joy! (Score 2) 510

by Aonghus142000 (#44926237) Attached to: Valve Announces Linux-Based SteamOS

Now Linux users can experience all the heartache and frustration that goes with Steam! Mysteriously vanishing content, random lock-outs, and a customer service strategy apparently developed by EA. I can't wait! [/snark]

On some levels, Steam is a wonderful idea, quick access to varied content, a centrally located distribution/launch point, and exposure to odder and more esoteric media are all benefits of Steam. Except when something goes wrong, which based on my experience is a fairly regular occurrence. That game you've owned for years that suddenly won't launch because Steam gets stuck in verification mode? Send them an email, and you'll probably hear back in about a month or so, and then with a request for more information.

Comment: Re:Basic Math... (Score 1) 159

by Aonghus142000 (#44894751) Attached to: One Man's Battle With Patent Trolls

Of course, it must have been nice not to have to respond to a modern level of time precision:

Prehistoric Nomad's Wife (PNW): "Where have you been?"

Prehistoric Nomad: (PN): "What are you talking about?"

PNW: "You said you'd be back by now! You're late!"

PN: "What are you talking about? I said I'd be back later. It's barely now. If anything, I'm early!"

Of course, since people haven't changed, Prehistoric Nomad ended up sleeping outside the tent anyway for the crime of winning an argument.

Comment: Re:should slashdot be asking if the U.S. should bo (Score 1) 659

by Aonghus142000 (#44833273) Attached to: Should the U.S. bomb Syria?

The problem is Betty White has never set up a government, Communist or otherwise

With such an abysmal track record (batting .0-0-0), the overwhelming evidence is that communist governments do not work! (At least not in the manner in which they are advertised.)

Or are you trying to argue: "I have a cunning plan. It cannot possibly fail for the 20th time!"

Comment: Re:should slashdot be asking if the U.S. should bo (Score 1) 659

by Aonghus142000 (#44827463) Attached to: Should the U.S. bomb Syria?
Wow, just wow. You really drank the kool-aid didn't you. For the record, no. No capatalist country has ever deliberately starved 30 million of its own citizens. The fact is time and again, when communists come to power wide spread "purges" occur. I mentioned the two worst, but the Kim family in N.Korea, Pol Pot, and Ho Chi Min all have records almost as bad. Heck, the Castro brothers and Che Guevara almost manage to make the list, but they were honest monsters who wanted to look their victims in the eyes before they tortured and killed them.

Comment: Re:For those of you that don't RTFA... (Score 1) 378

by Aonghus142000 (#44826683) Attached to: TSA Reminds You Not To Travel With Hand Grenades

Wrong question. It should be, How can I make this plane unflyable without having to compromise the armored cockpit door? Seems to me that tearing a large hole in the fuselage should do the trick nicely, bonus points if you do it over the wing, (you know, where airliners carry their fuel?)

Long gone are the days when we worried about "This plane is going to Cuba." or "Release our brothers you are holding or we will start killing passengers." Given that most of the plots that we've been made privy to involve some variant of sneaking an explosive on to the plane, (The Shoe Bomber, The Fruit-of-Kaboom Guy, the Great Toner Cartridge Debacle,) worrying about someone trying to smuggle a grenade onto a plane seems like a prudent thing to do.

Don't get me wrong, I've watched too many of the TSA's little stunts to be entirely comfortable with any plan they come up with, but when they say something that actually makes sense, maybe it's worth taking notice of.

After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Comment: Re:Absolutely not! (Score 1) 659

by Aonghus142000 (#44821677) Attached to: Should the U.S. bomb Syria?

Replying to both topic and parent.

For the parent, Yes, it is quite possible to use weapons that produce enough heat without going nuke. We (the US) had them 20 years ago, and I have no reason to suspect the technology has gotten any worse in the intervening decades. (For the record, open flame works even better.)

To the child. The "human shield" option is not available in this case. You need full protective gear to handle or even be around these things. LD50 is so low that even slight seepage is enough to kill. Had Syria gone the "human shield" route, we'd be hearing about the further deaths by now.

"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite." -- Bertrand Russell, _Sceptical_Essays_, 1928