Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Meanwhile OS/2 and Xenix existed (Score 2) 162

by DaHat (#49756663) Attached to: 25 Years Today - Windows 3.0

Now OS/2 I'll grant you, IBM fumbled hard on that one...

For the kids in the room you'll need to be more explicit, or I can.

One of it's biggest failings was claiming that it was "a better DOS than DOS and a better Windows than Windows"... which is all fine and dandy except for it helps to remove the motivation to build much of anything specifically targeting for OS/2, rather than Windows... and being an 'also runs' OS doesn't get you much traction for adoption.

Comment: Re:Why the Push for Online Anyway? (Score 1, Flamebait) 258

by DaHat (#49690843) Attached to: Online Voting Should Be Verifiable -- But It's a Hard Problem

Because there are those who believe that voting today is just to gosh darn hard.

Too hard to find your polling place and go there during election hours.

Too hard to request an absentee ballot if you don't be able to make it on election day.

Too hard to come up with a photo id to prove you are who you say you are.

Here in Washington state we ignore all three of those and mail the ballot straight to your house and give you 3 weeks to return it to be counted. No possibility of fraud there!


House Votes To End Spy Agencies' Bulk Collection of Phone Data 142

Posted by timothy
from the big-brother-has-his-eye-on-you-just-the-same dept.
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from a story at Reuters that gives a rare bit of good news for the Fourth Amendment: The U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill on Wednesday that would end spy agencies' bulk collection of Americans' telephone data, setting up a potential showdown with the U.S. Senate over the program, which expires on June 1. The House voted 338-88 for the USA Freedom Act, which would end the bulk collection and instead give intelligence agencies access to telephone data and other records only when a court finds there is reasonable suspicion about a link to international terrorism.

Self-Driving Cars In California: 4 Out of 48 Have Accidents, None Their Fault 408

Posted by Soulskill
from the no-mister-bond,-i-expect-you-to-frown-and-examine-your-fender-for-dents dept.
An anonymous reader writes: The Associated Press reports that 48 self-driving cars have been navigating the roads of California since the state began issuing permits last year. Of those, only four have been in accidents, and none of the accidents were the fault of the autonomous driving technology. Seven different companies have tested autonomous cars on California's roads, but Google, which is responsible for almost half of them, was involved in three of the four accidents — the other one happened to a car from Delphi Automotive. All four of the accidents happened at speeds of under 10 mph, and human drivers were in control during two of them. The Delphi accident happened when another car broadsided it while its human driver was waiting to make a left turn.

The AP pieced together its report from the DMV and people who saw the accident reports. But critics note that there aren't direct channels to find this information. Since one of the chief selling points of autonomous cars is their relative safety over cars piloted by humans, the lack of official transparency is troubling. "Google, which has 23 Lexus SUVs, would not discuss its three accidents in detail." Instead, the company affirmed its cars' accidents were "a handful of minor fender-benders, light damage, no injuries, so far caused by human error and inattention."

Comment: Re:why use anything besides Kodi? (Score 1) 198

by DaHat (#49653473) Attached to: What Might Have Happened To Windows Media Center

Sometimes its not ser by the channel, but by the cable provider.

Up here near Seattle a few years back Frontier Communications acquired the Verizon FIOS they changed a few things, including the DRM settings for ALL channels they carried except for the must carry ones to the point that could only view a recording on the same PC that recorded it... So boycotting the channel isn't always feasible.

I don't know if this is still the case as a short time later I moved and now have the joy that is Comcast *rolls eyes *

Comment: Re:Bureaucrats (Score 1) 312

by DaHat (#49649903) Attached to: Defense Distributed Sues State Department Over 3-D Gun Censorship

Well then you aren't you lucky I provided a link to the research for you.

Actually... you didn't, I even referenced the sort of 'proof' I was expecting from folks like you as part of another convo.

None of the rest of your comment bears reading,

Really? So you admit defeat as you refuse to continue to engage? Good to know... but wait...

as its A) bullshit,

You realize that repeating the same claim over and over again doesn't make it true... right?

and B) all countered by research that you still havent yet, have you?

If you had bothered to read what I said and considered it, the falseness of your underling claims would be quite evident... but given your refusal to read what I said, is there a purpose to me saying much more?

I will finally say this... you and the other hoplophobes have lost not unlike those seeking to prevent same-sex marriage to be recognized legally in the US as the courts keep on upholding these individual rights, more so in fact in the case of the second amendment with Heller & McDonald which were rather broad, something that SSM supporters can only hope for from SCOTUS this summer... but again, why let facts get in the way of a good old fashion hate fest?

Comment: Re:Bureaucrats (Score 1) 312

by DaHat (#49643055) Attached to: Defense Distributed Sues State Department Over 3-D Gun Censorship

Blatant bullshit myth.

I look forward to seeing that evidence.

62 mass shootings over the past 30+ years, and not one location was chosen because it banned guns.

Wait... so every mass shooter over that time was interviewed after the fact and affirmatively said "Yeah, I didn't pick the school/mall/theater/etc because it was a gun free zone"? No? Then I call bullshit on your unsubstantiated claim.

These shooters aren't choosing locations based on whether guns are or aren't allowed.

We are still waiting for evidence of that from you.

Most are choosing locations because it's where they got pissed off, such as 20 workplace shootings.

'Most'... not... 'all'? Again, you fail with useful citations.

Remember the Aurora shooting? Funny thing, the shooter didn't decide to go shooting up his nearest theater, nor the second nearest nor even the third... he chose one which apparently 100% unrelated to you... prohibited guns. But that's just a coincidence... right?

Even at the schools where shootings occurred, only in 1 of the 12 school incidents did the shoot not have personal ties to the school.

So you again grasp for straws to try to argue against reality, I feel sorry for you.

Also let's consider that most of these shootings weren't just rampages, but Murder-Suicides.
These shooters were not people picking locations based on their chance of survival or retaliation.

You claim that... but again, reality doesn't well work for you.

It's quite rare that the shooter realizes they have one bullet left or killed everyone they wanted and decide to off themselves just for the heck of it... more often than not they only off themselves with faced with resistance, be it the swat team, a cop or an armed citizen.

The upshot of a gun freezone which you are conveniently ignoring for them is that they will likely have a longer period of time to carry out their rampage prior to the suicide part and fail to acknowledge that that may just come into the plans of the perpetrator.

Some reading so that you might become better informed:

Those of us who have looked into this issue do not give much credence to a political piece from a partisan site, instead academic studies on the subject are far more revealing, you really should read up on the work of John Lott... or offer a similarly well researched pieces.

Comment: Re:Bureaucrats (Score 4, Insightful) 312

by DaHat (#49642389) Attached to: Defense Distributed Sues State Department Over 3-D Gun Censorship

You fail to mention that ~70% are due to suicide.

Let's imagine that back on New Years day all guns magically disappeared from the United States and no new ones could be constructed or imported, of the 21,000 people who would have statistically killed themselves with a gun... how many of those would find other successful ways vs would never attempt (or be successful at) killing themselves?

Now, how many lives do you think would be lost because they were not able to defend themselves against a home invader, carjacker or mugger on the street still armed with knives, clubs & broken bottles?

It's not as simple of math as you think, no matter how unfortunate.

Comment: Re:Bureaucrats (Score 2) 312

by DaHat (#49642343) Attached to: Defense Distributed Sues State Department Over 3-D Gun Censorship

I know people like to point to the lack of mass shootings following the gun law changes since the Port Arthur massacre, but rarely do they look at how many there were prior to it.

You should try it sometime, you might discover less of a trend of mass violence only ending afterwards and more of an anomaly.

Comment: Re:Bureaucrats (Score 4, Insightful) 312

by DaHat (#49642329) Attached to: Defense Distributed Sues State Department Over 3-D Gun Censorship

Maybe you should have considered the possibility that guns are purchased legally in Plano, TX and sold illegally in Detroit or Chicago.

I'm fully aware, not just of that possibility but that reality, black markets often crop up to meet demand... but then how does that change things?

Is it more or less favorable to have more legally purchased guns?

Is it more or less favorable to have more illegally purchased guns?

We could get into a 'criminals prefer unarmed victims' and 'criminals don't follow laws anyway' style argument, however I'll just point go back to my point that if it were as simple as 'more guns == more deaths' as the OP seemed to be implying, then the fact that hard to get a legal gun cities having such high murder rates seems to contradict that and that there are likely other more contributive factors.

Comment: Re:Bureaucrats (Score 2) 312

by DaHat (#49642237) Attached to: Defense Distributed Sues State Department Over 3-D Gun Censorship

Most gun homicides involve people that are largely in a state of non-treatment of various mental illnesses.

Citation please.

Are you claiming that suicide == homicide?

I ask because something on the order of ~70% of gun deaths in this country are suicides... a good number of which I would expect have some untreated mental issues... I've not seen a stat that claims that of those committing a homicide via a firearm, that at least 51% of them have untreated mental issues which played some part in it.

Or are you claiming that the victim may also have untreated mental issues?

Comment: Re:Bureaucrats (Score 5, Insightful) 312

by DaHat (#49642169) Attached to: Defense Distributed Sues State Department Over 3-D Gun Censorship

Nice straw men

On the contrary, I was responding to what was said... and unlike you providing additional information and the suggestion that maybe things weren't as clear cut as was being said.

Try comparing murder rates between Europe where guns are hard to get and the U.S. where guns are easy to get. Comparing U.S. cities is just silly.

First... why is it silly? Why is it silly to recognize that gun violence is not uniformly distributed across the country and instead often seen in largest #'s in certain locations? If we follow your logic to other areas, it would seem that you'd claim that economies of all of Europe be balanced out on paper to judge their collective status without noting the relative differences between say... Germany and Greece?

It's plenty easy to say X==Y or even X=>Y, and often such assertions will be accepted. Often though it's good to examine the underlying environment to see if X=>Y, or if X+(A+B+C)=>Y while X-(A+B+C) !=> Y.

We let well-trained (in most cases) police and body guards carry weapons, unless you live in Texas where just about any yokel can arm up.

'We'? Who is 'we'? Where is 'we'? Here in the US, it's relatively straight forward to get a gun in most of the states, though some states (New Jersey being the biggest) and municipalities (Chicago, DC, etc) have additional restrictions on simply purchasing/owning something.

It's funny you mention carrying... while 3 states allow largely unrestricted concealed carrying of a pistol (ie no permit required), another 39 are 'shall issue' states, which means so long as you meet the requirements and are not otherwise prohibited, you get your permit. I know hating on Texas (a state I have never been to/in) is a favorite pastime on /., it's kind of funny you mentioning them as that while a shall issue state, they are one of only six that prohibits open carrying if a pistol.

Now that should make you feel real safe, eh?

Nope, I'm still waiting to hear about 'we'.

Now, let's make sure only the non-crazy people get those permits to carry a gun. How do you tell which are the crazy ones? You just have to ask them.

Now we see you straying into straw man territory, where in my original post did I discuss carrying a gun? *hint* I didn't, I only brought it up now in reply to you.

To my point above, in most states a permit is not required to carry a gun... provided it is visible. And what magic does a permit bestow on a person when carrying concealed? More often than not, you as a private individual cannot tell the difference between a person carrying and not... let alone if the person carrying has a permit to carry or not. This was part of why stop and frisk was so useful, the police were better at spotting such people and removing illegally carried guns from the streets of New York City.

More so, what on earth does 'asking them' have to do with telling 'which are the crazy ones'? I've known a few disturbed people who are pretty good actors and would not show up on your radar if you asked... but that is why we have other mechanisms to check ones background... if they opt to carry concealed legally.

Never buy what you do not want because it is cheap; it will be dear to you. -- Thomas Jefferson