Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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:Fuck those guys (Score 1) 569

>What if it's not a false alarm and there's am unstable, armed murderer on the other side?

This is precisely the thinking that leads to swatting.

The chance this is a something a polite, normally armed patrol can't handle is actually somewhere close to zero. Even in the US. And in less insane countries, the only people that can call a SWAT team are actually the police. And they don't do it upon a call by a patrol, but only once some chief back at the station has decided it's needed.

Comment: Re:Nipples and terrorism? (Score 1) 134

Now this is interesting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We Swiss drink the same amount as the British. But funny enough, Britain does have a kind of a "drunk" problem; because people go out, drink as much as they can, then the pubs close. In Switzerland however, restaurants and bars stay open rather longish, which leads to people spreading their drinking through the evening into the morning, and NOT get drunk.

Similarly, in France and Austria, people might drink a lot, but usually don't go binge drinking.

Comment: In contrast to cyber-arms control... (Score 1) 367

by Kirth (#49203687) Attached to: Come and Take It, Texas Gun Enthusiasts (Video)

In contrast to cyber-arms control, which is in fact about NOT keeping vulnerabilities secret which will make everyone safer, gun control is a lost cause.

Because when it comes down to it, a gun consists of information, which is freely available; raw materials, which are freely available in the necessary quality; the abilities to really work the materials according to the information, which is available widely, from afghani weaponmakers to milling and printing machines; and finally the time to do it. Plus of course, the will to do it despite of government attempts to criminalize it.

With guns, the horse left the barn around 1350 A.D., and every attempt to close the door has been a failure.

Besides, the problem is not really the availability of the weapons, but the culture to use it. Guess why we've got nearly the same amount of guns as the USA, but our homicide-rate is ten times lower? Because it's really not the guns. It's the culture.

Of course you can excarbate the problem with making stupid laws that lead to the proliferation of criminal gangs by outlawing things like alcohol, drugs, prostitution and so on. Or by not having a social system that that takes care nobody falls between the gaps.

Comment: Wrong Question (Score 1) 47

by Kirth (#49203611) Attached to: Is Cyber Arms Control a Lost Cause?

The only people that CAN be interested in offensive capabilties are small communities (activists, terrorists, freedom fighters, whistleblowers), because they themselves are not vulnerable.

Any nation state on the other hand MUST be concerned about closing each and any vulnerability, because it puts them at risk. If it doesn't put the secret agency at risk, it will at least put their allies at risk: All the other branches of government, and companies deemed highly important for the running of the country (power, water, telecommunications).

So it's UTTER STUPIDITY to have bodies within your government working on "offensive capabilities". They are in fact WORKING AGAINST YOU.

The difficulty is probably to get the governments to realize this; but then, the problem is basically solved.

Comment: It's not about writers, it's about alphabetism (Score 1) 291

by Kirth (#49065439) Attached to: Should We Really Try To Teach Everyone To Code?

IMHO, writing code is a skill like writing a language. It's not that you're expected to become a writer, but writing helps you everywhere.

And using "Apps" as an example is of course bogus. The thing you'll probably do with your "coding experience" is more like writing word macros, or change some lines within some open source program.

A friend of mine, a climatologist, said "You can't be a scientist today -- no matter which field -- without knowing how to write code". He's right.

Comment: Re:Just for fun (Score 1) 351

by Kirth (#48913477) Attached to: Americans Support Mandatory Labeling of Food That Contains DNA

I think the labelling thing is nonsense since I don't think health risks are a big concern but I am a bit more cautious about the long term environmental effects as I suspect we're underestimating the probability of black swan events.
It's a good idea, no matter whether it's a health concern or not.

Because if I know, I can actually use the tools the free market gives me: Vote with my money if I want GMO or not. Because I want to boycott the patent-hoarding bastards that are tipping over the ecosystem.

Comment: Spying on the world is unconstitutional in the US (Score 1) 282

by Kirth (#48913197) Attached to: EFF Unveils Plan For Ending Mass Surveillance

Actually, the constitution not only forbids spying against citizens of the USA, but against everyone:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Notice, it says "people" there. It's speaking of "citizen" in the context of elections, so clearly the intention was that the 4th amendment applies to everyone.

Comment: Re:Science by democracy doesn't work? (Score 3, Informative) 497

by Kirth (#48875335) Attached to: Science By Democracy Doesn't Work

None. When science hasn't fully resolved a question based on the evidence, none of the competing theories should be used as a basis for public policy.

Bogus. Science is not about "fully resolving" but about "models that work". Yes you could back the "wrong" scientifc theory when making policy, but in most cases they will differ only in corner cases. And even better, you can choose a response that addresses the problem, no matter which theory is correct. Even if global warming today was mainly caused by volcanoes, would it make sense to pump out even more CO2?

However, if there's a debate like there is in the US with climate change, with opinions 180 degrees the opposite, you can be sure that one side is only spouting complete bollocks and propaganda. Especially when you notice that one side has most of the scientists on its side, and the other mostly politicians.

Comment: Re:Ha ha ha (Score 1) 129

by Kirth (#48727405) Attached to: Google Researcher Publishes Unpatched Windows 8.1 Security Vulnerability

> It's arrogant as hell for Google to decide that 90 days is long enough, thank you.

Totally ridiculous. I've witnessed the "responsible disclosure" discussions a few years back, and even then, 4 weeks was considered generous. I'd say it's totally egotist of you to expect google to keep even quiet for more than 30 days.

I'd given them two weeks and gone out with it. And there's some researchers with a lot more clout than me, who would have given them exactly ZERO days: http://www.securityfocus.com/a...

Live free or die.

Working...