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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Deserves the protection of law and order? (Score 2, Informative) 80 80

Yes, because an unarmed black man running *away* from you is an immediate threat requiring discharge of 8 rounds in the back

The forensic evidence showed that Brown was facing the officer when he was shot, not that he was running away. The only question is how far away he was when the shots were fired.

Not the only one. Because another question is why you're confusing a clear reference to Walter Scott with a reference to Michael Brown.

The foresic evidence showed that Scott was facing away from the officer when he was shot. The video showed that he was running away.

Try again.

Comment Re:More Sanity (Score 2) 270 270

After all, a photographer with a telephoto lens cannot sell pictures of you or post them in any publicly viewable media without your permission, but what about drone footage of you?

But what about photographs of you? After all, your premise is entirely false. A photographer can sell a picture of you, and most certainly can post them on publicly viewable media without your permission. The photographs cannot be used for commercial endorsements or in advertising without your permission, but a photograph taken as "art" can be sold and exhibited in the US without so much as a how-do-you-do. That's one hell of a peksy first amendment-related consequence that you've decided to ignore.

Comment Re:Government knows best... (Score 2) 432 432

As a society, we've gotten to the point where we tolerate zero risk in our daily lives. So much so that society wants government to decide what is good for us.

This is a terrible way to live. I want options in my life and I want the free market to create them. I don't want government restricting options available to me, or restricting those that would provide those options to me.

Your premise is that society wants this and you do not. Fine. Your options are (1) live with it and attempt to convince society to make a different choice or (2) leave society.

Your options do not include (3) do you want within society because society should be different and you'll live as if it were whether the rest of society likes it or not. That is not living with the courage of your convictions, it's dodging the sacrifices of living with the existing social contract or going to/building a free market utopia somewhere else.

I want a pony. That doesn't mean that I'm going to board it in my reserved parking spot in my downtown condominium because MINE.

Comment Re:Sure, I favor doing more of it (Score 1) 195 195

But you'd think that regulators would at least ask a few questions, llike "what happened" and "what can we do to make sure the same thing doesn't happen again".

You write as if they didn't do that several years ago.

The solution to oil spills is not: "another regulation that requires the regulated to follow the existing regulation." You develop new regulations when new processes or technology begin to fall outside existing regulations. Otherwise you enforce existing regulations, rebalance penalties, and recognize that no matter how many regulations you have, something will happen again. If you can't regulate theft and murder our of existence you sure can't regulate technological shortcutting out of existence.

Hint: when regulators determine that someone violated existing regulations and charge them billions of dollars in fines, "what can we do to make sure the same thing doesn't happen again" becomes a matter of weighing whether the fines are truly punitive versus something which might be written off as a cost of doing business. $4300/barrel of oil is still pretty punitive.

Comment Re:What is Pluto? (Score 1) 77 77

Or, Prince style: The dwarf planet formerly known as the ninth planet from the Sun.

If there are dwarves on that planet, it makes sense that they'd have a prince

A dwarf prince formerly known as the prince of the ninth planet from the Sun.

Come to think of it, the sun is a yellow dwarf star... *KAPOW*

We now return you to your formerly uncontroversial life, upon one of nine planets circling a sun, soundtracked by an artist toiling in rebellion against their record label.

let's go crazy... let's get nuts...

Comment Re:Insurance? (Score 1) 204 204

If I ship something, it is up to me to pay insurance if I wish to do so. Otherwise, I take my chances on something happening to the cargo or it getting completely lost.

Utterly true. However, your shipper is not trying to develop safer delivery trucks or airplanes so as to reduce the frequency of accidents. Those are other entities (GMC, Boeing, etc.). Your shipping may be trying to reduce driver/pilot negligence or otherwise abate other people's negligence, but those are strategies that are either well-known and probably already in use or under-development and of low marginal utility. Most importantly, what you're shipping 99 times out of 100 isn't valuable enough to justify a lawsuit.

These guys are building rockets. It is literally rocket science. While they obviously have incentives to avoid putting on impromptu fireworks shows, the government in this case is shipping items with limited immediate replacement capability (equipment, experiments, spacesuits) in addition to food, water, and the like. The government doesn't really care how much replacement would cost since it will pay for the risk one way or another -- the insurance simply becomes wrapped into the cost. It would really prefer that it not blow up. After all, ehen you have a large enough pile of cash, the smartest way to insure your risk is to self-insure.

By putting the risk of loss on the launch company, NASA would be giving them an extra incentive to become more reliable. The launch company can reduce their cost and increase profits (since they're usually bidding fixed cost to provide a package of launches, savings on insurance costs would go to the launch company). The reason for requiring insurance is that otherwise you either audit the hell out of the company, require a bond which ties up capital, or hope that they remain solvent after something goes *blam* without racking up an uncollectable debt. It'd be the Solyndra controversy in a somewhat different form.

Comment Re:"You have to thrust the authorities." (Score 2) 431 431

Electronic devices with lights shaped in the likeness of characters from an obscure television show that nobody born before 1990 had ever heard of, posed in a gesture that is universally understood to convey "fuck you".

I was born in the 1970s you presumptuous twit.

n!m (-_-) m!n

I hope you can see that because I'm doing it as hard as I can - literally. Damn lack of unicode support.

Comment Re:"as a Service" = you have to buy it Every Year? (Score 1) 189 189

Honestly, how much trust do you put in what Microsoft publicly says?

It's not binding, they repeatedly change their mind, and they're a huge multinational who doesn't give crap what their consumers want.

However the license agreement will be legally binding and unless it mentions a expiration date for the license, a subscription fee, or the like, will pretty much settle the matter as of July 29th.

So you'll pardon us for having ZERO faith in the fact that Microsoft has said anything. Because it doesn't mean a damned thing.

They will do whatever maximizes profits, and what their lawyers say they can get away with.

Your blindly saying you believe them makes you either naive, or clueless.

Here's the thing: Announcing that Windows Seven and 8/8.1 may be upgraded to Windows 10 (for perpetuity) during the first year of release and then changing that policy upon launch day would create a tidal wave of bad publicity. You can count on large corporations doing all they can to avoid bad publicity -- if only because it significantly affects profits.

So forgive us for thinking that a corporation which has made this announcement and had months to consider how it was being interpreted, without correcting that interpretation as launch draws ever closer, is going to change their position so close to launch.

It's not going to happen. And in three weeks and two days, I just might hound you with a few I-told-you-so-s.

Comment Re:Pao Wants "Safe Spaces" for Shills and Ideologu (Score 1) 385 385

You know that content gets voted by the community and only appears on the front page if enough people care, right?

And everyone votes. And everyone takes their day-off July 3rd holiday to go to reddit. And everyone... Show me a votes to daily-visits ratio before you declare what is a minority and what is not.

Comment Re:Pao Wants "Safe Spaces" for Shills and Ideologu (Score 1) 385 385

I am hearing that several subreddits that went private were forcibly reopened by the admins, and the mods were unable to do anything about it after. I don't have sources, but if it's discovered that it true, that would be the final nail in the coffin for me.

I hear you. It sucks when someone decides to take their ball and go home only to be reminded that it's not their ball. It sucks even more when you support that someone only to be reminded that it's not your ball or your home, and that both of you are very replaceable.

The users don't care about this. You're a tiny minority that wants to see a catfight because you've decided someone is irreplaceable without any actual knowledge as to why they were let go.

Comment Re:Civil versus criminal law (Score 1) 210 210

...but if you do so maliciously and mendaciously...

That has nothing to do with the case IF what is said is true...

Mendaciously means falsely, e.g., "lying, untruthful, dishonest, deceitful, false, dissembling, insincere, disingenuous, hypocritical, fraudulent, double-dealing, two-faced, Janus-faced, two-timing, duplicitous, perjured;"

He already had lack of truth as a condition, therefore it has everything to do with the case.

Comment Re:Authors have never heard of accelerometers (Score 1) 52 52

Yes, an object with zero acceleration could technically be moving anywhere between not and the speed of light, but that's pedantic.

Simply, no. It's not pedantic. Because you ignore that your accelerometers are not perfect, that your constant is a variable due to accumulated error in your accelerometers, that you need not glide around on an ice rink in order for your generally-increasing (magnitude) accumulated error to make that constant an unknown variable, and that GPS solves that problem quite nicely.

All you need to monitor is translational vibration (evidence of non-rotational movement) which will be present regardless if you are walking or driving.

Thus proving that you're being pedantic and an idiot, as anyone who has ever worked with inertial guidance systems versus GPS guidance systems will repeat to you. Over... and over... and over. But since you're quite willing to dish out criticism without accepting any, I doubt that you'll bother to ask anyone working in the real world with real equipment how it all actually performs.

Comment Re:Authors have never heard of accelerometers (Score 1) 52 52

Do the authors not know what accelerometers are? That makes me question their expertise for writing about this subject.

Do you not know the laws of motion and calculus? Because those make me question your expertise as a critic.

Even assuming that your accelerometers are perfect (which they most assuredly are not), tracking accelleration over time gives you an assumed speed plus an unknown constant, which you are assuming is zero.

But you know the old saying about assumptions...

Comment Re:Shaking my head (Score 1) 142 142

I'm capable of covering all but the most unlikely of situations

And when a not-quite most unlikely situation occurs, you'll be sure to to make good down to your last cent, rather than party like it's 1999 or take a sudden vacation to Central America.

Hint: in the states around me, you are free to self-insure provided that you deposit a rather large sum (mid-five-figures) in cash or bonds with the government. Because sudden parties and vacations tend to happen when one's life savings are about to be handed over to another. Are you fine with that?

And if they happen, I throw up my hands and declare bankruptcy and re-roll the dice. I'm fine with that.

EXACTLY. You're fine with that. The person you creamed doesn't get to discharge their injuries in bankruptcy, and doesn't get to re-roll the dice, but we really don't care about them. It's about you.

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.