Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:FedEx is a private business, isn't it? (Score 2, Insightful) 317

by Jiro (#49123211) Attached to: FedEx Won't Ship DIY Gunsmithing Machine

You don't seem to understand libertarianism. Libertarians believe that private actions should be legal. Libertarians do not believe that you should not complain about private actions.

Furthermore, in this case, if FedEx really is afraid of legal liability, or if the government is in other ways putting pressure on them, it's not a private action anyway. Government involvement is inherently not private.

But then I already said this.

Comment: Re:Oh bullshit! (Score 4, Insightful) 317

by Jiro (#49123173) Attached to: FedEx Won't Ship DIY Gunsmithing Machine

You don't seem to understand libertarianism. Libertarians believe that private actions should be legal. Libertarians do not believe that you should not complain about private actions.

Furthermore, in this case, if FedEx really is afraid of legal liability, or if the government is in other ways putting pressure on them, it's not a private action anyway. Government involvement is inherently not private.

Comment: Re:Darwin never suggested "survival of the fittest (Score 1) 249

by Jiro (#49073781) Attached to: Game Theory Calls Cooperation Into Question

What does this even mean?... the statement can only mean "survival of the survivers" which is a trivial obsurdity.

If I tell you a figure with three sides is a triangle, would you reply that since "triangle" is defined as a figure with three sides, I am really saying "a figure with three sides is a figure with three sides", and therefore I am not saying anything?

Comment: Re:Overblown nonsense. (Score 4, Insightful) 99

by Jiro (#48900013) Attached to: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In the Public Domain

Here's how you clearly put something in within the law: (1) You declare it public domain. (2) Now, keeping it there: You simply exercise a level of ethics even a 5 year old understands: You don't go back on your word, because (for one thing) that would make you a major fucktarded scumbag.

That doesn't work. Maybe a year later you get sued for something and the court orders that your copyright be transferred to the person suing you as compensation. Or you go bankrupt and your copyright is sold to your creditors. Or, instead of being sued, you die and the copyright goes to your heirs. And the new owner doesn't consider himself bound by your word.

Furthermore, even if none of that happens, it's still not equivalent to public domain because even if you keep your word, someone who wants to use your work has no way to read your mind and know that you're the kind of person who keeps his word. So he has to act as if you could withdraw permission at any time even if you never would.

Comment: Re:Defaults (Score 1) 2

by Jiro (#48777393) Attached to: Lizard Stresser DDoS-for-Hire Service Built on Hacked Home Routers

This is a bad idea.

1) This would teach users that when they are redirected to a page that offers malware cleaners and antivirus choices, they should download and install one. Most such pages are frauds, and the user won't understand the difference between the ISP sending them to the page and a banner ad or phishing email sending them to a similar-looking page,

2) Given the way that ISPs are actually run, encouraging ISPs to detect malware will lead to ISPs just detecting and banning all sorts of unusual activity. The ISP has probably not heard of a user running Linux, for instance, and would not care if all Linux users were detected as false positives or disconnected for refusing to run Windows virus scanners on their Linux boxes. And it's unlikely that the ISP has staff who would understand a Linux user's explanation of how his box is not actually running any malware.

3) If this was put into practice on a large scale, I would expect that shortly, the MPAA or similar groups would try to tell the ISPs that all torrenting is dangerous, malware-prone activity and should result in cutoffs.

Comment: Re:Restrictive Gun laws (Score 1) 490

by Jiro (#48775873) Attached to: In Paris, Terrorists Kill 2 More, Take At Least 7 Hostages

US gun death statistics include high-gun-crime, high-minority, areas where guns are as illegal as the city can make them. These areas skew the statistics, and France doesn't have many of them.

If the areas with the gun rights in the USA also had the gun crime you might have had a better point.

Comment: MP3 players? (Score 1) 391

by Jiro (#48748837) Attached to: Sony Thinks You'll Pay $1200 For a Digital Walkman

I really wish I could find a decent MP3 player that is not a "purity of the original signal" type $1200 scam, and was not discontinued years ago.

The usual advice is "buy a cheap phone and don't use it as a phone". This fails because

  • most of them have horrible battery life (the 33 hours for this sounds fairly decent, if only it wasn't $1200)
  • there are so many models of phones out that it's hard to find a good selection of reviews for any specific one
  • They tend to have random gotchas (for instance, there are phones which don't let you use the non-phone features until you activate it as a phone)

Comment: Is there a point? (Score 1) 110

by Jiro (#48544675) Attached to: Spectrum Vega: A Blast From the Past

From the linK:

It uses a low cost micro-controller and an emulator to

If you want to use an emulator, you don't need one of these. Just get a tablet with an HDMI connection, or an Ouya, or a jailbroken Wii.

I was wondering if this implements the Spectrum in hardware the same way the Commodore 64 direct-to-TV did, but apparently not.

Comment: Re:This isn't new... (Score 2) 155

by Jiro (#48538257) Attached to: Romanian Officials Say Russia Finances European Fracking Protests

I believe the Ferguson rioters were left-wing. And they were certainly trying to use violence to terrorize people for political purposes. Of course, you could always be loose as to your definition of terrorism on the right and not so loose on the left. And Moscow didn't need to fund them, but they still count as left-wing terrorists by your overly loose definition.

Furthermore, since you went back to 1995 for the Oklahoma City bombing, I can point out the rise of ecoterrorism, and the Discovery building shooter.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (7) Well, it's an excellent idea, but it would make the compilers too hard to write.

Working...