Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:give it up (Score 1) 78

The example of theft of service is a stretch for this case. In all of the examples given on Wikipedia for theft of service, real resources were consumed in a manner that is not replacable. In the case of copying data, the most you suggest is that he was stealing his own time on the clock. But there is absolutely no precedent to allow for that.

Comment: Re:This is not a matter of neutrality (Score 3, Informative) 434

by DrLang21 (#49584705) Attached to: Rand Paul Moves To Block New "Net Neutrality" Rules

If telcos decide to meddle with anything above they should
- lose common carrier status and become co responsible.

ISPs are already not classified as common carriers. That's why this whole debacle is even being discussed. The most obvious solution is for the FCC to classify them as the common carriers that they are.

Comment: Re: We need More Pork! More! (Score 1) 370

by DrLang21 (#49424715) Attached to: How the Pentagon Wasted $10 Billion On Military Projects
It could certainly change the dynamic to have more than two parties in office. But I can't imagine getting a third party in office would come without generational change. Even when there are third parties on the ballot, there is a perception that it is a wasted vote, so people don't bother. Campaign financing and access to the major privately funded public debates is a big part of the issue. When Perot had both, he demonstrated what was possible. But funding is a serious problem and since debates are privately sponsored, the government can't force candidate inclusion. Maybe I am too dire on the situation. But forced run off elections and guaranteed ballot inclusion don't really go very far to promote change. Money is the problem. And now with corporations opening their pockets to candidates and parties more than ever, the problem seems to be worse than it ever has been.

Comment: Re: We need More Pork! More! (Score 1) 370

by DrLang21 (#49422629) Attached to: How the Pentagon Wasted $10 Billion On Military Projects
The real reason moderates have been tossed aside is because it is a lot more expensive to campaign to them. All politicians have figured out that it is much more cost effective to divide people into an us vs them mentality and drive them to the polls through fear. You will no longer find many successful candidates who campaign to the middle because it just requires too much damn money. How can you compete when your opponent can spend orders of magnitude less per vote that you can trying to run a sensible campaign? The only long term solution is to raise children to think independently and to have enough emotional maturity to break away from the group when it goes insane. Hopefully over time the middle can be strengthened to the point of making FUD campaigns not cost effective any more. It doesn't look too though because even if the "independent" vote is growing, I see no evidence that they do not fall into a right or left camp.

Comment: Re: Tim Cook is a Pro Discrimination Faggot (Score 1) 1168

I am. I believe in annullment of non fruitful unions. Fuck who you like, cohabitate as you like, but make marriage about nurturing families has ALWAYS been my position. I came to this position when my tasks as a life insurance agent/financial planner led me to help rich DINKs pay less taxes using marriage laws, and felt strongly enough about it to change careers.

My position may not be to your liking, but it is still based on logical long term social best interests as I see them, and not extremism or prejudice.

Comment: Re: Tim Cook is a Pro Discrimination Faggot (Score 1) 1168

Having a system that supports the creation and nurturing of the next generation of mankind is in the long term best interests of homosexuals just as much as anyone else. Corrupting it into something purely based on decadent sex is not wise. For anyone.

Comment: Re:You can't have both. (Score 1) 255

by ShieldW0lf (#49256761) Attached to: On Firing Open Source Community Members

This is the kind of binary thinking from programmers that erodes the nascent relationships among well-meaning human beings. Your ignorant approach is neither an "Uncomfortable Truth" or a useful concept. Often the most obstreperous person can be the most productive, but they must be carefully taught in social graces. Even elementary schools have learned that "Everyone work alone!" is not a useful model; the best schools now bring along the slower (or more socially inept) students through consistent and persistent group activity. Only autocrats refuse to work on building viable, productive teams in which a disparate members each contribute in their own ways, but in accordance with a common "culture" of mutual respect.

So, the people who are in pain and reflexively lash out at others...

The people who are screwed up socially and offend others without knowing what they're doing...

The people who have no where to turn and no community to welcome them...

You will turn those people away because they're not playing well with others, because they ruin the "peace, love and pancakes" "viable, productive team" kind of atmosphere that you're going for.

And then, you will pat yourself on the back for being welcoming and inclusive?

No. You just have a different definition of what "elite" means.

All programmers are playwrights and all computers are lousy actors.