Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Games are not Sports (Score 1) 75

I have always argued that if you can drink while doing it, it is not a sport.

Well, that leaves out shooting.

There's a difference between shooting and rednecks getting drunk and plinking highway signs with a .22 from their truck.

disclaimer: I am a Southerner who owns guns (even .22s) and has hunted, but I sold my truck and I've never drank and handled a firearm.

Comment Re:BTRFS is getting there (Score 1) 234

I've used cheap snapshots on WAFL, modified XFS, and plenty of other systems over the years. It's incredibly useful to have, from being able to backup or replicate over a slow link, to making an automated build server that always has the latest code checked out. It's incredible frustrating to me that these features that have been available on Linux 10 years ago aren't ubiquitous yet when they can open so may new workflows.

Checksum is really nice when you can't do RAID-5. You summed up the real weakness in RAID-1, in that once the data diverges it's hard to determine which is good and which is bad. Of course a volume manager can provide you a block level checksum today, and from that you can run any file system you want on top of it. Some of the more expensive RAID controllers already support chunk checksum in hardware in case there is some performance issue with doing it in software. But those tend to force you to rewrite the entire chunk so the checksums can be recalculated, can't do a small single block modification (512/1K/4K/whatever) on those platforms. ZFS gives you some extra flexibility in that regard.

Comment Re:Games are not Sports (Score 1) 75

Then again, I wouldn't consider bowling a sport mainly due to the amount of alcohol one is practically encouraged to consume, and yet bowling scholarships exist.

I have always argued that if you can drink while doing it, it is not a sport. This of course excludes Babe Ruth and baseball.

Comment Re:Games are not Sports (Score 1) 75

Is shooting a sport or a game? What athletic abilities does it require?

What type of shooting? Long-range shooting requires controlled breathing and very fine (and not twitch) muscle control. Timed competitive shooting (for example 3-gun competition) again requires fine muscle control and also physical stamina/conditioning as you are required to keep up a controlled constant pace for several minutes. Straight up speed shooting requires fine muscle control and excellent hand-eye coordination and muscle memory. And then of course for any type of competitive shooting there's the stamina required for training due to standing, moving, or laying in one position for hours on end holding something weighing several pounds for long periods of time. And that doesn't even include the biathlon and other similar events.

Comment Re:Umm (Score 2) 54

Update: Researchers have discovered another vulnerability regarding baggage at baggage claim that lets attackers determine the name, passenger record, and trip history of a passenger simply by reading the tag located on the baggage. Airline spokesmen were not available for comment at the time of publication.

Comment Re: Why? (Score 1) 446

To establish that fact, you'd have to engage in a psychological examination of the criminals.

No, you would not. Because the evidence is simple. The vast majority of the types of murders we're talking about are conducted by people illegally owning guns, most of which are stolen or otherwise illegally in possession of the person doing the deed. If criminals cared about illegally possessing guns, that simple fact wouldn't be true. There's no need for hand-wringing psychoanalysis ... just open your eyes.

This sentence, your basically saying solving the problem solves the problem.

No, I'm saying that solving the crime problem happens to solve the CRIME WITH GUNS problem. But the gun control think (or pretend to) that guns CAUSE the crime. I'm pointing out that they're being completely disingenuous, because they know that the problem is crime, not guns. They don't want to confront the human behavior part, because that means being judgmental about other people (and statistically, being judgmental especially about poor people and minorities) that are involved in most of that crime. Because that's the third rail of political correctness, they lazily pretend that controlling the guns that non-criminals might purchase will make crime go away so they don't have to confront the real problem: local culture.

And yet that is a contention that hasn't been proven, actually.

That's why you can't make any assertions about local gun laws, as the effect of local gun laws on the availability of guns has not been demonstrated.

It doesn't NEED to be. Unless you're suggesting that gun control laws make guns MORE available in the areas where they are used frequently in crimes. Is that really your contention? Otherwise guns are uniformly available across the country, but at least somewhat less so in areas like Chicago because of the draconian laws (which is why people who wanted to own them for self defense in their homes there had to take the matter to court).

First you have to reduce the supply of guns, then you can see what impact it has on the crime levels.

Why? We already see that crime level are much, much lower in most areas where guns are readily available. Guns are harder to legally purchase in Chicago, where they have a huge crime problem. Guns are readily available in other cities, where they do not have that problem. What if Chicago's laws have NO impact on gun ownership levels. So what? Let's say it is has zero effect, and that guns are just as available there as the are in, say, San Diego or Hartford. So what? The differential in crime is enormous. If you're really going to pretend that can't grasp that, then there's little point in continuing the conversation, because you're not fooling anybody.

Comment Re: Why? (Score 1) 446

You're not understanding the difference between long guns and pistols. Which is why I mentioned rifles, and specifically talked about the constantly pointless gun control focus on "assault weapons" (which aren't actually assault rifles, but look scary to people who don't understand that replacing wood with plastic doesn't change the way a semi-auto gun works).

Comment Re: Why? (Score 1) 446

You're comparing two different things there, you first have to establish that the places where gun laws are most restrictive, do in fact, have fewer guns

No, we're establishing the fact that criminals really don't care about gun laws, and the problem is crime, not guns. In those areas with the high murder rates, reducing the overall level of crime down to what it is elsewhere (where guns are plenty available, but aren't being used in as many crimes ... because there AREN'T AS MANY CRIMES) solves the problem. The problem being crime, not the tools that criminals use (because as mentioned, they're also very happy to slit your throat or beat you to death ... the number of stabbings, for example, are also very high in the same places where the number of shootings are high).

You didn't even reply to the assertion, which was that it was more likely to be with guns due to the guns being everywhere.

That one, again, doesn't rally merit a response. Guns are available across the US. But criminal use of them is highly localized, statistically. It's as simple as the conduct of the people in those locations, period.

Comment Re: Why? (Score 1) 446

Homicide rates on the other hand are through the roof because it's so much easier to kill some one with a gun.

Except the FBI reports that the number of people killed with beatings by bats, pipes, and bare hands wildly eclipses the murders committed by any sort of rifle, shotgun, or other "long gun" (including things that look like military assault rifles). And yet every time the media talks about such things, they flash up pictures of scary looking rifles with black plastic parts on them, and focus on politicians who call for "assault weapon" bans. We've had multiple murders in our area just in the last couple of weeks. Stabbings, all of them.

Comment Re: Why? (Score 1) 446

That does nothing to change the fact that we have a homicide rate 4 times that of any other Western nation.

In real terms, no we don't. We have three or four specific cities with highly localized cultural problems and an inexplicable political tolerance for persistent criminal activity that account for the lion's share of those numbers. If you remove places like Chicago and Baltimore from the numbers, the US drops to almost the bottom of the "Western nation" murder rate list. Talking in nation-wide generalities about what is essentially a severe cultural problem in a handful of neighborhoods is completely disingenuous.

Another megabytes the dust.