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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:why do people get this wrong? (Score 1) 65

by BlueStrat (#49820157) Attached to: Cybersecurity and the Tylenol Murders

So the original (incorrect) post is modded at +3, while both mine and the guy saying I'm right are at +2. Thanks, moderators, for fact checking.

Wikipedia says I'm right and OP is wrong.

If it were not for your relatively low UID number, I'd say "you must be new here".

Facts and logic are fungible and elastic among Slashdotters when they negatively impact stubbornly-held (but incorrect nonetheless) worldviews, politics, (anti-)religious beliefs, and ideologies.

To a large extent Slashdot negative moderation serves the same purpose as sticking one's fingers in one's ears and going "lalalala I can't hear you!".


Comment: Re:No different than anything else (Score 1) 77

My god, the thought that the new generation might have new moral values: what is the world coming to?

Really? You think a "new generation" is so simple-minded that they can't use reason to put together a value system that arrives at the same destination as so many others? You think it's a good thing to change out values like ... stealing people's stuff is morally bad? Like, using your l33t haxx0r skills to ruin someone's reputation for the lulz is bad? You're confusing the tools and technologies that a new generation finds at their disposal with being somehow related to the philosophical underpinnings of their value system.

I'm delighted that, despite the fastest growing population in the world appearing to embrace medieval theocratic nonsense as the basis of their value system, that at least a fair portion of the world has gone more down the route of using reason to examine and reinforce their moral code. Yes, a "new generation" may indeed show less of the superstition-based trappings surrounding the fringes of judeo-christian culture, but basic stuff like "don't use your new [whatever technology] to steal people's shit" doesn't mean that a moral code based on that reasonable observation that doing so is objectively bad means that changing [whatever technology] means the moral code is changing. Just, sometimes, the venue in which it's applied.

That's why pretending that it's malware that's the issue, and not abusive thieves and vandals (people), is an act of moral cowardice. Because it's the same old stuff, different playing field. People who focus on the gun, the car, the piece of viral code, whatever - they're too chickenshit to address what's actually at play: other people whose world views are broken enough to make malicious use of the tools. People scared of making value judgments about other people always, always reach for the tool as the villain. That says more about that person than it does about the actual villain.

I would dissect your rant if I thought it merited a response

Hey look! You're doing it right now. That's actually pretty funny.

Comment: Re: No different than anything else (Score 1) 77

Are you equal in intelligence, as the next person?

No. I'm smarter than a lot of people, and many many people are smarter than me.

Did you ever get a "b", or score a 99 on a test

Oh, I've done MUCH worse than that.

Why condemned them

Why are you asking me? Have I condemned anybody? I'm condemning those who try to pretend that nothing bad is ever anybody's fault. That (relative to the article we're talking about, here) fact that focusing on the tools people use (or mis-use) and ignoring the fact that it's people using those tools is intellectual laziness and often cowardice in the face of political correctness.

Some may be better in an urban, or a wilderness environment. Why complain, you are not robots.

So you agree - people are different, and not all are equal. But ignoring that, we're talking about when people use tools (like malware) to steal other people's assets and reputations.

Comment: Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION (Score 1) 476

I fully expect us to end with an arrangement whereby the work of 1% (largely maintenance of automated systems that do all the "dirty work") will be sufficient to provide for the needs of the remaining 99%, and still have potential left. I also fully expect people to actually compete for the right to do that work.

You "expect" these things, yet provide no details on how exactly you "expect" these things to be or become fact.

Why should the 1% slave to support the 99%? What would be their motivation? Why would they not join the majority or simply move someplace else where they can keep more of the value created by their labor? Altruism? Altruism is a virtue only when it is voluntarily given. Otherwise it is theft and slavery.

On the other claw, it could also create tyrants from that 1% as they could demand compliance or cut off the tap, so to speak.

Like so many socialist style schemes, it requires humans to behave and act counter to basic human nature and without attempting to game the system. History has proven time and again that such schemes only work among a relatively small and culturally/politically homogenous population, and do not scale to multiple hundreds of millions of a culturally/politically diverse population.


Comment: Re:No different than anything else (Score 2) 77

There is a level of craziness to this post

Of course there is. I'm describing a pervasive, increasingly toxic type of craziness that impacts nearly every bit of public discourse that pops up when anything bad is being discussed. If such discussions were generally rational, there'd be nothing to have to talk about. But rational discussions involving causality and agency are now considered rude, like gluten.

Comment: No different than anything else (Score 4, Insightful) 77

It's no longer fashionable to associate human character, judgement, and action with unpleasant results. Malice? There is no malice. There is only the problematic tool or technology, against which we should rage. It's not murder, it's a "gun death." It's not a reckless jackass badly flying a GoPro in a crowded place, it's a "drone incident." It's not a bad driver, it's another "SUV death." It's not a criminal trying to steal your savings or reputation, it's "malware."

Talking out loud about how actual humans are responsible for the stupid or evil shit they do is no longer acceptable. That would mean assessing their intelligence, or making a considered moral judgement, based on some sort of, you know, identifiable value system. We can't have that! We'd need to post Trigger Warnings near any discussion that might result in the horrifying prospect of recognizing that not everyone is as smart as everyone else, or calling an evil actor evil, because, you know, judging. Much better to talk only about the scary tools, never about the people. Hey, Russian credit card scammers and bot farmers are really the victims, here - the malware made them use it. Probably of some sort of western patriarchal influence and whatnot.

Comment: Re:Xilinx (Score 1) 61

by Svartalf (#49815133) Attached to: Intel To Buy Altera For $16.7 Billion
Biggest problem THERE would be that they'd have to open up the X86 kimono a bit more than they'd really want to do that with NIOS.  I won't be surprised in one way (your meaning of the situation) if they do it and surprised all the same- because they're giving stuff out that can be more readily reverse engineered through the tools, etc. that people would get as a result of that decision.

Comment: Re:Conflict of interest (Score 1) 61

by Svartalf (#49815101) Attached to: Intel To Buy Altera For $16.7 Billion
Not a conflict of interest.  Just that a competitor just bought your supplier.  Big difference.  It's a problem that you need to find a new supplier.  The drawbacks with FPGAs is that there's nothing other than your sole supplier is just that.  You can't readily or easily swap out the FPGAs like you can SoC's in the ARM or MIPS space- or like RAM or eMMC's.  There's a bit of "standard" and "open" involved with things there.  I consider it necessary evil to be using them because they're not as open or "standardized" as the other stuff- but the moment someone wises up, even though it'll be a race to the bottom like the other plays, they will be the "king" there.

Comment: Re:So, what's the plan? (Score 2) 61

by Svartalf (#49815057) Attached to: Intel To Buy Altera For $16.7 Billion
They're big and slow compared to an ASIC, yes.  But the thing is, they're not big and slow overall- they're reconfigurable and you can dynamically change the logic (Witness Altera's OpenCL offering on the higher-end stuff they offer...  You don't offer that unless you're competitive with GPUs...) on the fly.  They have a place and it's not always custom logic.  It's adaptable custom logic- which ASICs **CANT** do.  CPUs are slow and plodding in many of the tasks you're talking about in that space- and GPUs are cumbersome and painful to use compared to them for that use.

Comment: Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION (Score 1) 476

We need Sanders to use the same tactics to block any Republican cuts to Social Security.

They shouldn't be just "Republican" cuts - the Democrats should also be enthusiastically behind reforming that transfer tax program. If you think that program is a good thing, you should also be solidly behind changes to it, like raising the age at which money starts flowing from people who are working to those who have retired. If you are reflexively against doing the things necessary to prevent such entitlement programs from completely swamping the federal budget, then you are part of the problem, and part of why it will ultimately implode, leaving nobody with that program's annual transfers.

Comment: Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score 1) 361

by ScentCone (#49813431) Attached to: Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Sentenced To Life In Prison
OK then, let's stick with the language. You're prepared to dispense with all of the founders' other personal-arms-ownership-related writings and commentary at the time because you're can't get your head around their punctuation choice as you seek to conflate and flip upside down the words they've chosen to use. But think about it, and translate some of their other ideas into more typical modern language, noting how it's actually possible to put two clauses into one sentence to improve conveying how important they are, related to one another. Like, the so-obvious-it-goes-without-saying implication baked into the 4th, as they use that amendment to also limit government power as used against the people...

"Because it's sometimes going to be necessary for the government to search someone's house, papers, and personal effects in the course of a criminal investigation, the government shall not infringe on the privacy of one's personal home, affairs and property without showing probable cause and specific objectives." See how that flows? Breaking that up into two sentences would make it less clear the point of the amendment is to preserve individual liberty despite the need for state or federal power that might - uncontrolled by the constitution - encroach too readily on personal freedom.

As for some of your other points:

If this was about local militias being a counter-balance for a standing FEDERAL army, they would have said as much, if not in the amendment itself, but in the large body of other surrounding writings and debate. But almost all of the founders' writings at the time, and their commentary specifically surrounding that topic explains their urge, having raised and used such an army to settle things with the British, to not have such a thing on a permanent basis. Most figured that the best bet was to let locals (at the state level) maintain militias as they saw fit ... but anticipating exactly the sort of clamp-down on personal liberty they experienced with the Crown, they made it part of the charter of the country to point out that at no level of government could the obvious need for military units be considered grounds to prevent "the people" from keeping and bearing arms.

And before you try to explain that "the people" doesn't refer to individuals, ask yourself why they chose exactly that same phrase ("the people") when describing who should be personally free from government over-reach when they wrote the 4th Amendment and referred to personal home, papers, etc. Read it, and the use of that phrase, in the same context.

Comment: Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION (Score 0) 476

I support universal basic income guarantee

Then you have not thought things through logically, I'm afraid.

That's all fine and good until you have a large portion of the population either receiving said 'mincome' or in retirement. Have you checked what direction the demographics are trending in the US? Ever-fewer workers are supporting an ever-increasing population dependent on government. It's unsustainable and quickly approaching collapse already.

Where's the money going to come from to pay collective Pauls when you run short of select Peters to rob?

I'll just leave this here:

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,

I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.

Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn

That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:

But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,

So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,

Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,

But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come

That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,

They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;

They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;

So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.

They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.

But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life

(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)

Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,

By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;

But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew

And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true

That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man

There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.

That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,

And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins

When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,

As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,

The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


Comment: Re:Yes, but because (Score 1) 180

Apparently you do not know the meaning of the word "Why".

Are you that unable to make the connection? Nobody is entitled to someone else's work on terms not offered by the person who creates the work. The bogus, straw-man question of why someone would thing that "poor" people aren't entitled to art and entertainment is pure BS. There is an abundance of both, offered by artists and channeled through all sorts of outlets at no cost to people who want to consume it. If they want extra choices and convenience in order to get work that the people who create it would like to charge for, then not having that cash handy doesn't suddenly entitle them to that work.

I can't afford an original Picasso print. So, I should be entitled to it because I'm too poor to pay for it?

BYTE editors are people who separate the wheat from the chaff, and then carefully print the chaff.