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


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:So glad I don't watch TV (Score 1) 66

Whatever rocks your boat. Near as I can tell, almost nobody actually cares to be productive all the time. Most of us have hobbies or interests which ultimately don't have any point at all except that we like it. That's usually the case for social interaction too, some people want more or less of it but a night of beers with my buddies rarely produces more than a hangover. I'm usually on the computer because TV is usually too dull and passive for me, it doesn't mean blabbing off a comment on /. is more productive. And it doesn't mean I need to go skydiving to get my adrenaline pumping. If you got too many ants in your trouser to sit down and watch TV, good for you. But I'm guessing you're ultimately wasting your time on something else. In fact, what you do when it's not to produce something usually reflects what you really want, the rest is usually work, chores, maintenance and repair that you "have to" do.

Comment Re:your speech borders treason (Score 0) 65

Oh, but I am willing to kill off corporations. Since corporations are the creation of the state, and are sanctioned by said state, the state has every right to dissolve the corporation for gross violation of public trust, trust the corporation is entrusted with by the state upon creation.

We do allow them too much authority over government, which is why I oppose corporations (and unions) from contributing to political causes, either directly or indirectly. We call these subversions of public servants "lobbyists".

I am not your envisioned version of Libertarian. I believe that corporations can and should be killed off. It is the only way to hold them accountable for their actions.

Comment Re:The Power of the State. (Score 1) 245

Your view, there are no rights except by convention (legal or otherwise), which are thereby granted by government, which can then take those rights it grants away by any arbitrary reason it can come up with. Which is exactly what Tyranny looks like. You're nothing but a slave to the tyranny you believe in.

Comment Re:your speech borders treason (Score 1) 65

We have great consumer protections on US made goods. Everything else imported not so much. China doesn't care if there is malware on phones, or poison in the pet food or anything else. The only fix for this is to hold the IMPORTERS and DISTRIBUTORS here in the US fully responsible, and put them out of business. The problem is, there is too much money involved in the politics of killing off corporations.

Comment Re:The Power of the State. (Score 1) 245

I beg to differ. Rights as I see them are outlined in gross form here:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted ...

Rights exist apart from governance. Governance is supposed to "secure" (protect) these rights. The fact that you don't understand how any of this works makes me sad for our society in the future.

But I understand, you remove "creator" from this, and there is nothing to base "rights" upon, and that leads us to tyranny. If there is no higher power than government, and mobs (power by force) then we are doomed to tyranny and mob rule.

Comment Re:Or for slightly less per month (Score 1) 80

. A 1997 Audi and a 1997 Honda both cost around three grand now,

Yeah, 18 years later most cars converge around a few thousand bucks. We were talking driving it off the lot. And I was thinking a little further up market than run of the mill Audi.

The more expensive cars, honestly hold their value better for the first few weeks. Why? Limited supply and demand. If I want a 2016 Ford F150 there are plenty of them to be had; why would I settle for even a slightly used one unless I was going to save a couple thousand?

But a new 911 Turbo or a Lamborghini... the numbers being shipped to the dealer are strictly limited, only so many are even coming into the country. If I want one of those... a very slightly used one isn't going to much of a "deal" because demand for new vehicles is outstripping supply; so there is a bit of a halo around nearly new.

There's also a trend in the more expensive vehicles for the new year to be more expensive than the previous year. That helps to prop up used vehicle prices a bit too (as a percentage). In the more mainstream markets new is very price competive with last years new, so why would I pay anything clsoe to X for 2015 when X buys me 2016.

But even so, yes all cars depreciate pretty hard and fast in the first few years.

And you take a horrible bath on the most expensive cars (the S550s, the A8s, etc) in the first three years, almost without exception.

You take your worst losses in first years. Definitely. Not just expensive cars. All cars.

Comment Re:The Power of the State. (Score 2) 245

A right isn't protection. I have the right to keep and bear arms. IT requires NOTHING from anyone to practice. It doesn't require government. It doesn't require anyone else to do anything. It exists on its own, apart from anyone or anything else. I have that right if I am alone on an island.

The point of government is supposed to be to secure(protect) the rights of individuals, NOT rule over men. The moment government compels someone to do something against his conscience, it is necessarily harming him.

Relating this back to the original topic, the "harm" caused by the boy sending dick pic to a girl was miniscule. It may have been unwanted and may have been a threat (implied or directed) or just clumsy flirting (bad taste), but that requires judgment, not rules of absolutes (zero tolerance). I oppose zero tolerance laws simply because the are an over reaction to bad judgements and end up worse position.

Comment Re:So how bad it is really? (Score 1) 244

The original Ars Technica article there actually found very little troubling behaviour once the privacy settings were turned on. But yes, we should question the odd remaining instances they did find, particularly the upload with unidentified content.

Comment Re:Or for slightly less per month (Score 1) 80

and you'll find the car is now worth about half what you paid for it.

Depends on the car, but for most cars they are worth far more than half, despite the truism. The higher priced the car, the less they lose as a percentage.

But yeah if you pay $30,000 and LITERALLY drive it across the street, there is no way the dealer is going to pay you more than the wholesale cost on the vehicle new.

Think about it... why would he pay you more for your slightly used car than he could pay for a brand new car?

But given the vehicle literally has under 5 miles on it, and you can show a bill of sale proving you've had it for all of 10 minutes, he will easily pay you a few k less than his wholesale cost, then list it for just slightly less than the car would cost new. (which of course is several thousand more than he gave you for it... because that's how business works.)

If you want to get value for your used vehicle, sell it privately. Any dealer who buys your used car needs to buy it from you at a price where he makes decent enough money selling it that its worth showing up in the morning, after his rent, utilities, insurance and other expenses are covered. Not to mention any expenses on the vehicle itself, from detailing it to doing the brakes that you didn't mention were way past overdue... or whatever.

The point is, buy a new car, drive it off the lot, and sell it privately and you'll be asking just slightly under what you paid for it. And you'll get it.

Look at any car lot... are the 1 year old 2015 cars with 7-10k miles on them half the price of a brand new 2016 one? Nope. Not even close. Cars, outside of a few collectors items, are depreciating assets but they're not nearly as bad as you seem to think.

Comment Re:Programming (Score 1) 606

See my example above regarding bcrypt vs PBKDF2.

Both are open-source. Both are completely public. But PBKDF2 has been through a completely public security audit. Bcrypt has not.

Someone trying to push public encryption standards that wouldn't pass audit won't get very far.

But government has pushed encryption standards that not only weren't openly audited, but not even publicly available for study.

Given a choice, which one would you trust? The guy who says "pick one of these", and let's you look at them and pick them up and feel them, or the guy who keeps them in a locked box and won't even show you to them first?

I know my choice.

Comment Re:Programming (Score 1) 606

At some point you do have to trust somebody. But who?

Should you trust the coder in the next cubicle over who blindly swallowed stories about the "security" of bcrypt, without any actual evidence?

Or should you trust the government?

Or should you trust the private-sector experts, like Schneier or Adelman?

At some point you have to either study it in-depth yourself, or take someone's word for the ultimate security. But not JUST taking someone's word, and certainly just not coder X at some conference. You can get explanations of how open-source encryption works.

Comment Re:Yes, in many states... (Score 1) 698

Nothing I did was "desperate", nor was I "regurgitating" Latour. Why do you lie so much?

Jane/Lonny Eachus hasn't retracted his endless Sky Dragon Slayer claims, and continues to spread Slayer misinformation.

Bullshit. What "slayer misinformation" do you pretend I "continue" to spread? Just another lie. You seem to have no respect for the truth whatsoever.

But that's probably asking the impossible

What is asking for the impossible, is asking me to stop doing something I'm not doing.

But that's probably asking the impossible, because Jane/Lonny Eachus is so brainwashed that he went above and beyond the call of duty by joining Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan in blaming his teenage victim, and wrongly insisted that none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayer club) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing. If Jane/Lonny Eachus really isn't a Sky Dragon Slayer, at the very least he'd retract his mistaken claim that no Slayers have been convicted of sexual wrongdoing, and admit that Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan is an admitted pedophile.

More blatant lies, with utter disregard to what you know to be the truth. Here were my actual words. The rest of your nonsense is links to other sources, or you quoting yourself again.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well.

Note the words "to the best of my knowledge". O'Sullivan had been accused of improper conduct, but was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. As for any other non-criminal conduct in his personal life, I have no knowledge or interest whatsoever.

Further, as I indicated to you, the only person of whom I was aware, who could possibly be the subject of your ranting was O'Sullivan. So imagine my surprise when you linked to a page about someone named Manuel who was completely unknown to me. Further yet, as I told you at the time, I had no idea who were "members" of the Sky Dragon Slayers, nor did I care, nor was I a member myself. So you knew all this, yet posted all this bullshit anyway.

So what is your point here? Some kind of attempt to show guilt by association? Some kind of attempt at sexual harassment? Because I have never so much as met any of these people, and I didn't even know of the existence of some of them until YOU pointed them out to me.

panic: kernel trap (ignored)