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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 1) 197

That is kind of interesting, everything I have read indicated there were warrants issued through the FISA court, and numerous rulings that what they were doing was constitutional, all published. Could you point me to an article stating that there was ANY unwarranted surveillance?

So you would accept it as Constitutional if the courts rule that police randomly entering & searching your home without a warrant or probable cause to believe a crime is or is about to be committed is not a violation of the 4th Amendment?

No US court has the power to overrule the US Constitution, secret or otherwise. Any such rulings are by definition unlawful and un-Constitutional. An un-Constitutional law is no law at all, and it is the duty of every US citizen to ignore and/or disobey/violate it if/when it conflicts with the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.

Strat

Comment: Re:A scientific hypothesis is not a guess (Score 1) 123

by Oligonicella (#48906009) Attached to: How Do We Know the Timeline of the Universe?
"Calling theories"... Hypothesis was used in the quote. In fact "theory" doesn't appear at all. So you're arguing against some other statement.

"... the simple fact is that much of the modern world would simply not work if the words "hypothesis" and "guess" were equivalent." Incorrect. Reality doesn't give a crap how words are used. You apparently do and are taking umbrage. Fine, just don't act like what you're writing is fact. It isn't.

"... rather than mysticism and magical thinking." Or hypothesis.

Comment: Re:Modula-3 FTW! (Score 1) 430

by Grishnakh (#48905431) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is Pascal Underrated?

Nope, Beta was not far, far superior. You're totally forgetting that Betas could only store 1 hour of video. (They later fixed this, but by then it was far too late.) Who wants to change tapes in the middle of a movie? VHS tapes could store a whole 2-hour movie, so they easily took over. Not having Sony's stupid licensing costs helped too. And by the time Beta was on the way out, VHS had caught up to it video-quality-wise too.

Comment: Rumor: Fox Is Planning an X-Files Revival (Score 1) 353

by eldavojohn (#48904215) Attached to: Best 1990s Sci-fi show?
In the news recently are rumors that Carter, Anderson and Duchovny will reunite for new X-Files episodes. Fox has sorta confirmed this.

I own all the DVDs, a couple years ago I rewatched them. I may come off as a rabid fan at times but the background music was atrociously horrid. Also the story arc plot became overly convoluted and impossible to explain at times. That said, one of the most convoluted characters (Krycek) was my favorite. Aside from several minor valid criticisms like that, I really think it's a great platform for modern storytelling.

I do have to ask myself, at times, if there is some level of insane conspiracy theory today that we owe at least in part to those people watching X-Files when younger. I have to admit that the 9/11 inside job truthers movement claims could have been ripped from the pages of an X-Files script.

My biggest concern, of course, is whether or not it could still be fresh. With recent high quality additions to television canon, we'd have to be prepared for Chris Carter coming back at us with a 90's angle when episodes like Home really aren't as shocking anymore. The bar has been raised (thankfully).

Right now, The X-Files is going to occupy a contextual place in television history like The Twilight Zone. A revival could very well tarnish that. On the other hand, I've never felt like I really received closure on the whole story arc ...

Comment: Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? (Score 1) 116

by ScentCone (#48902267) Attached to: Fark's Drew Curtis Running For Governor of Kentucky

You want to know who also agrees with you, terrorists agree with you, which is why they use terror to force people to do things that the terrorists want them to do.

Really? You equate our constitutional system of checks and balances to terrorism? Terrorism is the simple majority deciding that they can tell you what to do. Are you OK with 51% of the population deciding that you no longer get to speak freely, because they don't like what you have to say? That's democracy. A constitutional republic (which we are, that's not really open for debate, even when you confuse it with something else, like a monarchy - and you're very confused, here) has tools in place to prevent people like you from rallying 51% of the people who vote to do things like have the other 49% enslaved, or killed, or whatever you'd like to see done in the name of your having the majority of simple votes on the matter.

Democracy ie representing the majority

The majority is not always right, and the people who wrote our constitution knew that. It's why the country isn't run like one bit PTA meeting or a dog club. We have three branches of government, and the legislative branch is broken up in to two houses specifically to blunt the tyranny of the majority. You either haven't ever studied the basics of how the constitution is structured, or you have, and your pretending you haven't so that you can make your really bad analogies. Please try to get it straight.

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 1) 197

So, what's to stop an insurance company from working with the ride share companies.../snip

Government bureaucrats & officials, and the innumerable laws, rules, and regulations at local, State and Federal levels at their disposal to interpret however they wish unless/until there's enough public attention and outrage to force the issue.

The same government that prevents Tesla Motors from selling cars directly and also in many areas limits the choices available for domestic home high speed internet services. The same government that completely ignores the US Constitution and shits all over the 4th Amendment with NSA bulk surveillance.

You know, the guys you help elect and vehemently defend because "he's your guy" and you don't want those other guys to get in even though they agree on everything except carefully focus-group tested and selected wedge issues designed to keep the electorate divided.

Strat

Comment: Re:We don't all work in Windows + efficiency (Score 1) 415

by Grishnakh (#48900461) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Where Can You Get a Good 3-Button Mouse Today?

But there are a number of times where explicit copy/paste is much nicer.

I don't know what DE you're using, but in KDE, both modes work, and they go into different buffers. So if you feel the need to do the explicit copy/paste with Ctrl-C/V, it works fine, and you can even highlight something else afterwards, then paste the two separately with middle-click and Ctrl-V.

No, having one buffer is not better in any way. It's stupid in fact. Better is KDE's Klipper, which keeps a history for this buffer and lets me choose things I previously highlighted or copied.

Comment: Re:Simple solution (Score 1) 415

by Grishnakh (#48900439) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Where Can You Get a Good 3-Button Mouse Today?

Yes. For people who use real computers, middle button = "paste selected text".

Yep, that's exactly what I use it for too. I make very frequent use of this function.

However, I have no problem just pressing on my mouse's scroll wheel to do this. I'm using a Dell laser mouse I picked up on Ebay for $6 and it works just fine this way. My previous Logitech G5 worked fine this way too (unfortunately I had to stop using it because the laser part stopped working for some reason).

Comment: Re:CA requires commercial licenses for pickup truc (Score 0) 197

IMO, the *real* reason for commercial licenses was the concept that commercial drivers are driving much larger vehicles that require special training/skills to operate safely on the roadways. (Your average licensed driver can't just hop into an 18-wheeler and operate it.

Exactly. That's the same reason people should be required to have commercial licenses to drive pickup trucks. They're much larger vehicles than regular cars, and need more training to drive properly. From what I've seen of most pickup truck drivers, they obviously lack the necessary training and skills for driving 6000-pound vehicles, especially ones with dual rear wheels.

A vehicle anyone buys at a regular car dealership and uses as a "daily driver" for things like commuting or trips to the grocery store should NOT require a commercial license.

Yes, it should, if it's a large vehicle. If someone buys a Kenworth and uses it for grocery runs, should they not be required to get a commercial license? It's no different for a Hummer. If you want a vehicle for getting groceries and commuting, get a 4-door sedan like everyone else.

Comment: Re:Modula-3 FTW! (Score 2) 430

by Grishnakh (#48900351) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is Pascal Underrated?

This is an idiotic comment.

C, C++, and PHP are still very popular languages. Perl is not; it's largely faded away except for a few niches, for various reasons, and has been replaced mostly by Python.

Pascal has been mostly dead for a long time. However Python (which you obviously favor as "clean") is hugely popular these days, and Java is still holding its own in the enterprise space.

Obviously, your opinion of what is "ugly and unreadable" or "clean" has absolutely nothing to do with which languages are popular.

Comment: Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? (Score 4, Insightful) 116

by ScentCone (#48899339) Attached to: Fark's Drew Curtis Running For Governor of Kentucky

Even if it is simply "I will hold public opinion polls and honor their conclusion"

So, you'd be OK with him supporting mandatory labeling on all foods that contain DNA? Because 80% of the population says they support their government helping them out with that.

I'd never support a politician who says he'll do what the majority say they want. We don't need mob rule directly, or by proxy, either.

Comment: Re:What's unclear? (Score 1) 88

by Theaetetus (#48899033) Attached to: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In the Public Domain

Along with your work, you provide a promise not to sue, giving up all your rights to the work in question. It's clearly illegal to do that with the intent of changing your mind later.

Well, since the armchair /. lawyers will soon descend upon your post spouting off about how you can't enforce anything without a contract, let's just go ahead and get this posted: Promissory Estoppel ;-)

However, as your link notes, the measure of recovery wouldn't be the same as if the contract existed, since there would've been no negotiation and awarding full use of the work would be unjust enrichment. Instead, a court would probably say that there are no royalties due for past infringement, but that you don't get an unlimited right going forward to keep using the work.

The trouble with being punctual is that nobody's there to appreciate it. -- Franklin P. Jones

Working...