Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Those who cannot remember history (Score 1) 167

>"So a very tiny amount. Europe pays the vast majority..."

Europe is not a country. And not all of Europe is in NATO. Even the concept of "Europe" isn't perfectly well-defined.... some would say Russia is also in Europe. The NATO protection is, primarily, of European nations. Yes, it helps everywhere else, too, to keep NATO's "enemies" in check. But the USA is 1 of 32 members and yet pays more than five times 1/32nd.

Comment Re:Those who cannot remember history (Score 1) 167

>"I don't have an issue with Donnie hammering on those, I just wished he would have made clear that this was about overall defense spending."

He is often unclear, unfortunately.

>"Of course by abandoning Ukraine he now gives EU[...]"

I am not aware of him ever vetoing any support legislation, or threatening to do so (I could be wrong on that). He was confident he could work out a deal and quickly. Apparently Putin is not so cooperative.

Comment Re:Those who cannot remember history (Score 1) 167

>"It was Putin who succeeded in getting these countries to up their budgets."

Keep in mind the big invasion didn't occur until 2022, years after Trump left office the first time (which is when he was calling for them to live up to their obligations). Of course, Putin was already hostile before that and had already invaded during Oboma admin, but that apparently didn't motivate them.

Comment Re:Those who cannot remember history (Score 1) 167

Part of the treaty is to keep up their own military/defenses and they were not doing so (and for a long time and getting worse). Member states were expected to pay at least 2% of their GDP into defense/readiness, annually. "Donnie" wanted to make sure that the countries were ready and able to defend themselves and come to the aid of other member states, instead of immediately relying on other member's resources when it is too late. That is not an unreasonable expectation.

There are also direct contributions to NATO, itself, to cover its operating and management costs. "The total budget for these common funds is approximately â4.6 billion for 2025. Contributions are based on a cost-sharing formula that considers each country's gross national income." And the USA covers 16% of that operating budget, more than any other member.

Comment Re:Those who cannot remember history (Score 4, Informative) 167

>"And then you look at Europe, with their two years of maternity leave, and worker protections, and way more paid holidays, and universal healthcare, and they all like to look down their noses at Americans, while they benefit from a massive security umbrella that the US provides, which frees up the funds to spend on social programs."

While simultaneously NOT PAYING THEIR AGREED OBLIGATIONS TO NATO, leaving the USA to absorb that as well. I will now get downvoted by reminding people that it was Trump that demanded they start paying their obligations, and succeeded. https://www.usatoday.com/story...

"Rutte then nodded along as Trump recalled demanding that NATO nations pay up their fair share during his first term as president. [...] very few were paying, and if they were, they weren't paying their fair share, [...] After making it clear that U.S. wouldn't support NATO if member states didn't step up, the money started pouring in, [...] The U.S. contributes 3.4% of its GDP and about 16% of NATO's annual budget. [...] By 2024, all non-U.S. NATO allies spent the 2% target on average for the first time."

Comment Re:Google? wtf (Score 1) 78

>"Saying Libre Office replaces MS Office like saying a tricycle vending cart replaces a step van."

I never said that LibreOffice can replace all the functionality of MS Office for everyone. You must be thinking of someone else. It can, indeed, replace all of what most people do with MS-Office, and most of what the rest do.

>"For instance, Libre Office has no support for group editing."

It does support tracking, authorship, and also "check in/out" on remote file locations, but not really true group editing. They are thinking on that, though:

https://design.blog.documentfo...
https://bugs.documentfoundatio...

Comment Re:Annoying but actually reasonable (Score 1) 188

>"In the UK we have an annual inspection, but not until the car is 3 years old (from the point of first sale). They have said they will have a free odometer reading at the same place that does the annual check for the first two times."

Here it is every single year. Varies by State, of course. Some States it is 2 years, some have no inspections at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Oh, it must have changed a lot. I don't remember there being so many that have no inspections. Only 14 of 50 have regular inspections now. But my point was, they already have the info here, so it is ridiculous to play these games about mileage here.

>"The more annoying part is that you have to pay up front, i.e. estimate your annual mileage and then at the next odometer check you get a refund or pay more depending on if you are under or over. I can see why they did it, car tax is paid up front for the year too, and it allows people to spread it over monthly payments."

That is just stupid and unnecessarily complicated (making it in advance instead of arrears). Besides, it could still be made in payments if in arrears. It is not like the government will be starved of much precious revenue by it being one-time delayed this relatively small tax. Yeesh!

Comment Re:Google? wtf (Score 4, Interesting) 78

>"Switching from Microsoft to Google is like switching from Hitler to Mussolini. Move to Libre Office or the like."

Yeah, really.

But 20 million cells? That seems ridiculous. Why aren't they using a database for something that huge?

Anyway, I had to check... LibreOffice Calc supports more than 1 billion cells from 16,384 columns by 1,048,576 rows. Hope the machine has a lot of RAM if trying to push that :)

Comment Re:Annoying but actually reasonable (Score 2) 188

>"It can very well be true, though, that one government entity is not allowed to share personal data with another government entity."

It could be. But it also seems ridiculous and incompetent in this case. Both entities already know me, my address. And both know my vehicle, VIN, etc. One just knows an annual odometer reading that the other does not. Not like this is sensitive data or could be abused at that resolution.

I shouldn't assume the worst, but it APPEARS like they want to force people to try and be tracked.

Comment Re:Annoying but actually reasonable (Score 1) 188

>"Annoying but actually reasonable"

It is absolutely reasonable in concept. But it might not be in practice. I have zero problem with paying for my actual EV mileage in some tax. My State decided it was going to collect it annually during registration renewal. Also reasonable. But they either charge an "average" mileage of ALL EV drivers (however they determine that), or force me to put an always-on tracking device in my car. And neither is reasonable. And my vehicle manual actually says that such devices should not be used/left in the OBD port.

My State already requires annual inspections. AND THE ODOMETER READING IS COLLECTED at each inspection and entered into a State Police system by the inspector for every vehicle. So they ALREADY KNOW my mileage. Their "average" is an order of magnitude more than I drive.

I Emailed and asked why I am going to be unfairly taxed for way, way, way more mileage than I drive when the data is right there, already being collected by the State. And I refuse to be tracked with a spyware device that sends location and behavior data. The response was "well, we don't have access to that data, it is on a different State system". OMG.

So a concept can be fair and reasonable in many ways, and then be totally unreasonable depending on how it is implemented.

Comment Re:With this Tax ... (Score 1) 188

>"EV's are still horrifically cheaper to run than an ICE vehicle by very large margins"

That depends on the gas price, electricity price, and efficiency of the vehicle. ICE will usually lose by a lot. But there are plenty of places where that gap is not "horrific", if the ICE vehicle is very efficient, gas prices are low, and electricity is not.

Comment OPTION (Score 1) 15

The summary omits that this is an OPTION, and won't replace other options. I have ZERO devices with 6Ghz (and I doubt I am alone), so it would make no sense to offer only 2.4/6.

What I don't understand is why it can't offer a triple-band hotspot (apparently not an option). Or just a 6Ghz or 5Ghz only option. So you will be forced to choose between 2.4/5 or 2.4/6. But since it is mostly personal use, I guess that is fine.

I do wish there was a power setting also shown and that they chose a low-power mode by default so these devices won't potentially interfere with congested WiFi infrastructure around them. As a personal device probably just giving access to your laptop or tablet right next to it, it should work fine with a low power output.

Comment Re:Devices, not sites. (Score 1) 26

There is no way to enforce age limits unless you require identification for a login or it is something built into the devices, themselves, that signal it is a minor and in lockdown mode. And since the latter seems to not be happening, the trend is to try and "age-wall login" more and more sites. And that requires ID. And that strips both adults and children of privacy.

I think the parents should be setting the age limits for what minors access, with recommendations made available by various sites and organizations.

Comment Devices, not sites. (Score 1) 26

The onus should be on the parents and their agents to control and restrict any internet-connected devices that children have access to. Children should not have unrestricted access to the Internet, unless directly supervised by an adult. The end.

There aren't just "some" sites that are a problem. There are millions of them. Trying to control all sites and strip adults of their privacy is not an acceptable way to deal with the problem. A whitelist restrict is needed. It needs to be made socially unacceptable and shocking that a minor has full access to the Internet on any device, or to call/text/media to/from a stranger.

They need to put this energy into helping to make better/newer/easier lock-down tools for devices parents want to give to minors and leave everyone else alone.

Comment Re:Rent (Score 1) 76

>"Man I was with you right up until this corny line. It costs a shit ton to develop and maintain all of these player clients."

The player clients exist regardless of what network it is used on. It doesn't change with viewing "outside" your own network to some other server. Money is fungible, of course. But there is nothing about your rent payment to enable "remote" use of a different server that costs any development money for a Plex client. They might host an entry in a reflector, but that, again, requires essentially no new development on maintenance- it is already present so you can reach your own server with the "free" plan.

Slashdot Top Deals

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Working...