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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:DC power? (Score 1) 225 225

my A/C really never shuts off all summer,

That sounds to me like you have a badly undersized unit. Its also possible that something isn't working right maybe the A-Coil is caked with crud and inst transferring heat into the loop efficiently?

Either way that sounds terribly inefficient and is probably costing your a fortune to run. Its probably worth talking to an HVAC guy.

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1) 1163 1163

Plus, it is possible for people or property to be struck before it slows to terminal velocity.

No unless those persons and property were directly in the line of fire between you and drone, its not. Hint the acceleration due to gravity will be reducing the upward velocity of the shot until it reaches zero. At which point it will begin accelerating to terminal velocity on its way back down. Provide the angle of the gun to the ground is sufficient that nothing will be in the path of shot until it reaches its maximum height, than nothing can possible be struck at greater than terminal velocity.

Comment Re:Everybody List What You Think Went Wrong (Score 4, Insightful) 550 550

I have to agree. Not giving more than occasion coverage to game gate was about the most journalisticly responsible thing Slashdot could have done.

GG is and never was anything more than a bunch of self righteous and self important bloggers on both sides spewing lies and distortions. There is so much bad information that really can't be fact checked out there it isn't possible its not possible to write an intelligent article on the subject let alone have a discussion about.

Comment Re:Is anyone actually suprised? (Score 2) 589 589

Because avoiding the hang mans noose by virtue of gaining massive public support for your actions and getting clemency that is ultimately dependant on the whim of one man is

declaring open season on any and all State secrets that anyone with access thought should be revealed"

That assertion is ridiculous!

I don't think it in anyway would cause future leakers/whistle-blowers to expect similar outcomes. It might give them a ray of hope but that is about it. Lets face it the American public has actually shown themselves to be rather discerning on this issue. Snowden's actions are viewed very much more favorably by most than say Bradly Manning and Julian Assange. Sure there are some who believe any and all information wants to be free, as there those who believe anyone who reveals a state secret should be dipped in boiling oil until there skin peals off; that come down predictably on one side on these events with little regard for the details. The public in general though seems to recognize a grey area exists.

Comment Re:No surprises there... (Score 0) 589 589

Which is especially funny given his recent moves to release 22 convicted drug offenders

What moves sure looks like nothing other than political grand standing to me. Pretty much all of it is "tied up in paper work." Which is funny because you know the president has the power to grand executive clemency, he does not have do a full pardon which would erase their crimes but he absolutely has the power to cause them to be released immediately.

He won't though, because Obama is a coward and hypocrite. He knows the political fallout would be terribly if any of the guys he lets out fuck up. He won't run the risk, he wants to the 'system' to do it so he can avoid accountability.

Comment Re:Translation (Score 5, Insightful) 589 589

he made no effort to be a whistleblower

False there are e-mails that have been more or less corroborate that indicate he DID raise the issue up the chain of command. He was basically told not to worry his pretty little head about it and get back to work.

Selling IC secrets to the highest bidder is hardly whistleblowing

Are you aware of any evidence he every sold any secrets? I am not.

Comment Typical Hipocracy (Score 2, Insightful) 589 589

Not that every administration in recent memory has not been run by hypocrites but Obama and his people are so naked about it that it hurts.

Wins re-election - "Elections have consequences"
GOP sweep of House and Senate - "Stone walling and veto threats over the budget"

Snowden goes to Russia - "not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime."
Obama goes to Ethiopia - "Its an important strategic ally with a democratically elected government"

Cuba's continued human rights issues right when they are out of client states to help them and finally truly going to be squeeze by the embargo, hah lets open relations....

  I say FUCK YOU Mr. President. I get the rules don't apply to you. Authoritarian regimes are fine when they square with your agenda, but anyone else tries to 'use' one its wrong. If you want to claim the moral high ground, then fucking occupy it.

Comment Re:What benefit to announcing it? (Score 1) 202 202

Because if one person can find an exploit so can someone else. At some point you have to go public because other ways Hacking Team like business can just keep selling it as a zero day to all manor of bad actors and end users are left exposed.

At lease if you let the cat out of the bag individuals can decide to stop using their phone if they believe the liberty or safety may be threatened as result. At that point you may be exchanging some activist keeping his head attached to his neck for price of script kiddies embarrassing some celebrities by publishing their nudes. It might just be the best of bad options.

Comment Re:Two birds with one stone (Score 1) 566 566

Here are the things about the Hillary E-mail scandal that should given everyone pause.

1) Basic technical understanding. Hillary keeps talking about the future and continuing to lead America into the 21st century but does not herself see that conducting business with sensitive materials from an outside e-mail domain is problem. Not only does she not understand this she hasn't got anyone around her to tell her or won't listen to them. yet we are supposed to accept that she makes informed intelligent decisions.

2) Hillary as per her history "no controlling legal authority" type pattern is being evasive rather than turning that server over to the government immediately like any of us little people would have done once congress started asking about it ( to save our own skin ) she redacted and turned over copies of the documents. Okay minimally compliant, in the mean time though the chain of custody has been ruined. So whatever does surface in terms of classified docs etc will be harder to prove. She is working to construct a legal defense of herself based on various technicalities.

2a) While we might forgive 2 as simply being prudent, if we accept her vast right wing conspiracy assertions she is basically making her case in the court of public opinion on technicality as well. "Oh those things were classified after the fact", well fine but they were still sensitive and the Secretary of state of all people should have been able to recognize that. Maybe no crime was committed but its still was comically bad judgement and given you want our vote for president why can't you answer for that?

3) How does her negligent handling of sensitive materials square with her harsh condemnations of Snowden and Manning's deliberate leaks? Given those events were taking place partially under her watch did that trigger any introspection about her only procedures around operation security? If not why not? Do the rules not apply to Hillary?

Comment Re:She is better then jeb bush (Score 2) 566 566

My check from the government is my earned entitlement. Your check from the government is an amoral welfare. Paul Ryan hates Social Security, but when he drew Social Security to get to college, it was somehow fine. Even Ayn Rand drew government checks.

Because as an individual its not a moral act. You leave nothing on the frigging table. Rand and Ryan I am sure never voted to support those programs, they also never voted for the taxes and regulations they labored under before or after utilizing them.

If there were an option to opt out of society and only opt back in when the time to collect comes that would be wrong. The way I figure it even though I totally support dismantling most of what the federal government does until someone tells me I don't have to file a 1040 form and sends me a check re-reimbursing me with interest for all the various activities my tax dollars have paid for along the way that I did not support you better believe I feel entitled to collect from and utilize programs I qualify for. I did not vote for them, I did not get my way. My fellow citizens did however.

Its a democratic republic. We take the consequences of elections good or bad. There is nothing wrong with voting to end programs, distributions, etc and still taking advantage of them if you loose. That is inherit in the rules of our society.

Comment Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money (Score 4, Insightful) 566 566

Better idea: Use environmental and workplace safety laws to enforce and minimize those health costs, instead of using the concept as a cudgel to push cronyism.

Except in 240 years of American government both under the Constitution and the Articles before it that has NEVER been successful. Cronyism has basically been the character of our government from the outset.

The only thing that has ever worked is to tie the hands of government and the framers knew it. Power corrupts!

A far better idea would be to eliminate liability protections, weaken the corporate veil, and stop government backed lending. Make industry responsible for the harm it can do. The tail pound from your mine leaked and now my farm land is useless. I should be able to sue the coal company for the economic value of my land and income it could have generated for my family for the next 10 generations and if the coal company goes bankrupt I should be able to collect from the share holders in proportion to the remaining liability and stock they own.

Oil spill same deal. Heavy metal toxicity from the shit your solar panel plant releases ditto. You want people and industry to behave responsibly the solution is unlimited liability.

Comment Re:Drones (Score 5, Interesting) 296 296

Admittedly have never been an infantry man, pilot or any other sort of military man myself I still suspect its much easy for a guy sitting safely in chair to make a moral decision about a target, than it is for a guy in a life threatening situation to do so.

A drone operator can loiter around a target for a long time until he or she is confident said target is properly identified. A jock in a fighter-bomber does not have that luxury and also exists in constant fear someone is going to pop up with an anti air craft device, that will end his life. The drone operator has to worry an anti air craft device will ruin his afternoon with extra paper work. I known which one I'd rather imagine hovering over me deciding if I an enemy combatant or just a guy going out to milk the goats.

The separate question is does done warfare lower the barrier to entry such that conduct operations in theaters that would forgo if it meant having the infrastructure and associated costs of supporting large numbers of manned air craft in the area. This is over great concern. If we make warfare to easy we might find ourselves doing more of it. I am not buying the argument though that drones are equivalent to mindless kill bots or worse than the existing maned alternatives in any given situation all else being equal.


If it is a Miracle, any sort of evidence will answer, but if it is a Fact, proof is necessary. -- Samuel Clemens