Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Who actually wants this? (Score 1) 51

Well if it means we're going from small devices with small apps and small amounts of resources to suddenly making them full on desktop machines, I just don't see the point.

And that's totally fine. The point isn't what YOU want, it's what some private company wants to do and these actions will in no way, shape, or form negatively impact your life and thus getting all up in a huff about it is a little over the top.

Comment Re:Who actually wants this? (Score 2) 51

What percentage of Android owners even remotely want any of this?

Users don't know what they want until it is provided to them and, honestly, if you don't want any part of it, that's cool but perhaps it will really help developers port their work cross-platform and bring us to a completely different level.

I would love to see Android or iOS apps come back across the divide in some cases, so there's likely a market in reverse.

No sense in getting all fired up about CodeWeavers doing this.

Comment Re:Vote for Sanders? (Score 1) 210

well said

i was going to mention sanders, but i wanted to soft pedal it

there's still a knee jerk reaction to the word "socialism" in the usa that is something out of 1950s era joe mccarthy red scare hysteria

even though actual socialism: germany, denmark, canada, etc., simply means affordable healthcare and higher education. socialist countries are richer, happier, and freer than the usa (yes, freer: their representatives aren't purchased by plutocrats)

but if you say "socialism" to a moron of the american variety, they think communism. gulags and long lines for toilet paper

this is how you keep slaves: bury them in ignorant propaganda

Comment Re:does anybody do proofreading here? (Score 1) 366

That's perhaps one of the most bizarre positions I've ever seen posted on /. You're suggesting that this site exists and is successful because... its populated by pissed off nerds with latent violent tendencies who were actively drummed out of the Scientific America crowd and forced to talk to one another by a school?

Comment Re:Perhaps I can explain (Score 4, Insightful) 366

So the law was intended to make someone already guilty of breaking the law also guilty of breaking another law. It doesn't take a genius to see the inherently flawed logic there. If the criminal didnt particularly give a shit about the first, why would they give a shit about the second? It doesn't prevent there being crime at or near a school. It just makes the punishment for getting caught greater. Or do you mean to say you need an excuse to bust gang members who weren't actually caught doing something criminal?

In the meantime you have criminalized not only a legal act, but more importantly a Constitutionally protected right.

The law solves nothing while taking rights from people not guilty of anything.

It adds more harsh punishment to existing criminal activity, yes. But the very same people trumpeting the fact that gun free schools laws are great are also trumpeting the unfairness and racism inherent in the judicial system which puts 1000's of minority and underprivileged young people in prison at a starkly incongruous rate to others.

So which is it? Is it incumbent upon us to more harshly punish these gang members and make it more easy to imprison then and for longer? Or is the judicial system unfairly attacking and too harshly punishing them?

Comment Re:ITT (Score 3, Insightful) 210

there is a mistaken notion that you have to devise a perfect solution to the problem before improving the problem

for example: we have laws against rape and murder. that doesn't stop all rape and murder, but no one is arguing that, just because we can't stop all rape and murder, we shouldn't have any laws against them. but we do have morons arguing that because we can't magically stop all corruption, we shouldn't try to minimize it

the point is to simply minimize the problem. the simple fact is that many nations do better than the usa in regards to controlling corruption and plutocrat interest. with very simple changes (simple in construct, i didn't say simple to achieve). for example: we pass laws that cut down on the election cycle funding by corporations and plutocrats. i'd argue the most destructive event against the usa, in it's entire history, worse than 9/11, worse than pearl harbor, even worse than the civil war, is the 2010 citizens' united decision. let's start by reversing that

a lot of whining at this point about how that's hard. because the right thing is hard to do is an argument against doing it? anything worth doing in this world is hard by definition. if it were easy, it would already be done. this is just lazy whiners

elect people that would promise to reverse citizen's united. i'm not saying it's going to happen in 2016. but every day people grow angrier and more aware of the problem. look at the interest in trump and sanders. these "protest votes" would usually fade by now in previous cycles. but people are really getting mad. at some point, a tipping point will be reached. this problem isn't going away, and is getting worse. not enough people are paying attention right now. but more and more are every day

really our biggest enemy is acceptance and cynicism. there's always people with bad intent in this world. they always need to be defeated. but instead of rolling up our sleeves and doing that, the perplexing and maddening thing is people who roll over and accept being robbed, and then rationalize their victimhood with cynicism. this is our real enemy: willing slaves

you will see this mentality in many comments in this thread and other threads on the topic of corruption and government. those people are the real reason we have our problems

Comment Re: Safety (Score 1) 366

And on the topic of impulse control, these mass violence events are never, ever spawned by a responsible concealed carry or open carry adult. Ever. You dont hear any stories about the "intimidating redneck hillbilly back-woods jarhead nutjob" getting pissed and whipping out his firearm, because it doesnt happen. But people pass laws that both fail to stop a person who has plotted to do harm, and prevents law-abiding people from stopping them.

Comment Re:Safety (Score 1) 366

And now not only will the law be ignored by a criminal, but your dad (assuming he's honest and law-abiding) can't even pick you up from the school parking lot in your family car if he's got a pistol in it. If he were to see a criminal or a bat-shit crazy kid marching into the building with a shotgun, your dad couldnt even run in to help with a firearm without being in direct violation of the law that was wholly ignored by said bat-shit crazy kid.

Gun free zones and laws dont prevent bat-shit crazy kids from doing horrible things. But they DO make it a crime to try to stop the bat-shit crazy kid by using a firearm unless you're "authorized".

Comment Re:Perhaps I can explain (Score 1) 366

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

The no gun zone is supposed to keep guns out. We agree, yes?
The no gun zone will be ignored by a criminal who wishes to do harm. We agree, yes?
The no gun zone will prevent law-abiding, educated and responsible adults from bringing means to protect innocent people into that zone. We agree, yes?

So the law first accomplishes nothing in it's intent to prevent a criminal from committing violence, while also preventing the means by which to defend against said criminal. The law both fails to prevent harm to innocent's, and also removes their best defense. THAT makes it a bad law, and directly puts innocent people at greater risk.

Comment Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved (Score 3, Insightful) 106

that's actually the problem with most technology

nuclear for example

i haven't a single doubt that we have the technological means to maintain nuclear plants forever without a single accident

but what we don't have is the social and political means to do that

money is always being cut, indefinitely, and the people making that decision are not exactly technically proficient. the incentive to cut costs form the general public and bosses who want to trumpet cost cutting trumps all other concerns, because other concerns, no matter how vital, are simply not understood. combine that with a technical person that responds with anger and arrogance at the idea of vital safety mechanisms being underfunded, the manager will simply disregard him or her as a person with a personality problem, and then disasters happen

people who champion nuclear, especially on a website like this, understand the technology well, and are correct when they announce we never have to have a nuclear accident ever again due to technological issues

but they don't consider the political and social aspects of our species that means vital funding of safety mechanisms and maintenance of absolutely crucial technology *will* be broken. it's simply a matter of when, not if

and then people who champion nuclear get angry at people like me, and accuse us of not understanding the technology. oh we understand the technology is wonderful. but it is you who doesn't understand humanity

the imperative on cutting costs and doing as little effort as possible is always trumping all other concerns. always. and people like this wind up being the managers, not the underlings. they can't be fired, they do the firing

incompetence is a force that destroys everything. sober up and accept that

nohup rm -fr /&