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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:It's not stupid (Score 1) 334

by ShieldW0lf (#48629881) Attached to: Google Proposes To Warn People About Non-SSL Web Sites

Great illustration.

On my desktop, over the LAN, with caching forcibly disabled, HTTP took 5.3 seconds and was 9% slower than HTTPS.

On my mobile, over WiFi, again, with caching forcibly disabled, HTTP took 6.8 seconds and HTTPS took 10.8 seconds, 33% slower, AND instead of consumed 2 MB of data because caching couldn't be used.

On my mobile, over the cellular network, HTTP took 18 seconds, and HTTPS took 30 seconds, 69% slower, AND consumed 2 MB of data.

So, considering that mobile is huge and growing, THIS IS A DUMB IDEA.

Comment: Re:Stupid (Score 1) 334

by ShieldW0lf (#48629461) Attached to: Google Proposes To Warn People About Non-SSL Web Sites

Freedom does not require you to operate in secret. If you feel the need to operate in secret, either you need to fix your culture, or you need to fix yourself.

Preventing misrepresentation is a social positive. Preserving secrecy is a social negative. Compromises have to be made, but protecting your secrets is not a noble goal in and of itself, shouldn't be necessary in a free society, and in fact represents a threat to other peoples freedom.

Comment: Re:Land of the free (Score 1) 476

by ScentCone (#48628535) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

I don't think of guns as inherently evil, but they are inherently dangerous.

How? Be specific. If I put a gun on a table in front of you, it will sit there for a thousand years without hurting either one of us. Are you concerned it will spontaneously explode, or grow some sort of nerve tentacles that will intrude into your brain and make you do something awful? Why aren't you worried about kitchen knives, or hammers? More people are killed in the US with pipes and baseball bats than with any kind of rifle (semi-auto or otherwise) - are all cylindrical club-like objects inherently dangerous? How so?

People should treat guns with respect and always assume 1) that they are loaded (even if you JUST took all of the bullets out) and 2) that the gun is about to fire at whatever it is pointed at.

Yes, it's a good habit to treat every gun as if it might go off when you handle it. So you always handle them as if they will, and control that muzzle's direction at all times. Just like you always have to think about where you're swinging an axe, or pointing the front end of a moving car.

Comment: Re:Land of the free (Score 1) 476

by ScentCone (#48628487) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

Citizens being allowed to carry guns would have stopped neither.

Really? His nice, lazy, all-afternoon hunting down of young people on that island couldn't have ended with fewer deaths if someone on that island had shot him down in self defense before he committed such methodical, unopposed slaughter?

Comment: Re:Should let them work inside parks. (Score 2) 61

by ScentCone (#48628365) Attached to: Councilmen Introduce Bills Strongly Regulating UAV Use in NYC

Where is it in the constitution that flying a drone is a protected right?

Ah, another person who never went to school, or certainly wasn't paying attention.

Your rights are not defined in the constitution. The constitution exists to limit the government's power to interfere with your liberty. Some of those liberties are so important that they are also mentioned by name (the right to liberty that by definition includes the right to speak, assemble, protect yourself, etc). Only leftist idiots think that it's the government that grants you your rights. That's 100% Nanny State backwards. Please do not vote.

Comment: Re:hooray for the government (Score 1) 61

by ScentCone (#48628343) Attached to: Councilmen Introduce Bills Strongly Regulating UAV Use in NYC

UAVs are potentially an externality because they can do physical damage anonymously for the cost of the UAV.

Yeah, just like a brick thrown from an overpass or a 40th-floor window - and that costs a fraction of the price of a single UAV battery. Why aren't you in favor of banning bricks? Or would you be happy with simply registering, with photo ID and fingerprints on file, the ownership of all objects that have enough mass to be dangerous?

Comment: Re:hooray for the government (Score 1) 61

by ScentCone (#48628329) Attached to: Councilmen Introduce Bills Strongly Regulating UAV Use in NYC

Gun bans do work and work well.

Not really. Ask any of the dead people in Chicago, where despite very (and even unconstitutionally) severe restrictions, the local thuggery manages to shoot itself up quite regularly. On the other hand, you've got places where guns are readily available (legally) and routinely carried in cars and on person, and which have very low violent crime rates. It's not about guns, and it's never been about guns. It's about culture and law enforcement. Chicago has a violent subculture and no interest in dealing with it. The results are self-evident.

Comment: Simplifying the scenario so far (Score 1) 476

by hort_wort (#48628167) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

Bully: "I've gathered up a bunch of people and we're all gonna make fun of you. And we're gonna get your friends to laugh at you and turn against you too."

Victim: "Why? I'm not bothering you at all."

Bully: "Because you're not like us."

Victim: "Well I like my friends. If you don't stop, then I'm gonna smack you."

Bully: "Oh! Oh... well, I don't wanna be smacked. Never mind."

Bully's supporters: "Hey hey hey, he's not the boss of you! Come on! We'll laugh at him with you! He won't hit you, he's bluffing!"

All the simple programs have been written.

Working...