Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:WTF is Wayland (Score 1) 74

Defenders have argued that network transparency is a minority application and that they don't like the way it's implemented in X11 anyway,

All I need to know is that all the people who know the most about X11 think Wayland is a good idea.

Here's a talk from 2013 where an experienced X11 developer explaining exactly what is wrong with X11 and why he thinks Wayland is a good idea. This link starts 40 minutes into the talk, where he specifically talks about running remotely over a network.

https://youtu.be/RIctzAQOe44?t=40m22s

And I've never seen a Wayland developer say that network transparency would never happen; they were focused on getting the essentials right.

Here's a talk from SCALE a year ago. This link starts with him saying exactly that: the Wayland guys were focused on essentials but now are ready to start looking at remote.

https://youtu.be/Sz1T0GvUziw?t=27m36s

Comment Re:Let's get real (Score 1) 209

In your eagerness to stop the fear mongering you badly understate North Korea's capability.

Proof is needed, not speculation. Understating according to who? The local populace? South Korea? Maybe.. but that is not because the DPRK has enough military power to win a war, it's because they have the potential to do a hell of a lot of damage to Seoul and a few other Norther areas if a war started. They lack air and naval power to win anything.

20 years ago guys like you declared the same things, that the North's economy and tyranny made scientific accomplishments like nukes and rockets impossible. Since then they've detonated nukes(plural) and launched satellites(plural again). I'm not sure where you've set the bar for 'meaningful' but the North has made succeeded in building nuclear weapons and launching rockets around the world.

Ahh, nothing like the old red herring line of shit. I did not state that scientific accomplishments were impossible, I said it was expensive and they could not afford it. Expensive in terms of both man power and money, and man power when you don't trust anyone is certainly a pretty huge hurdle to cross. Care to guess at how many scientists are killed annually in the DPRK? Percentage wise, it's higher than many other jobs because scientists tend to think and question more. Tyrannies have always had this problem with keeping scientific minds, read some history books.

The reality is that if Seoul wasn't housing 10million people within range of North Korean artillery, NATO probably would have removed the Kim dynasty generations ago.

Horse shit! The number 1 reason that people claim to ignore the DPRK is "China", not the geographical location in relation to South Korea.

You keep on spreading FUD though.. it works on the masses who don't question or contemplate what they get told.

Comment Re:What do you mean... (Score 4, Informative) 108

"redesigned user interface for improved ease of use"?

You might try watching the demo videos. They made improvements to the menus, improvements to the context menus, and improvements to toolbars (including a pop-out side panel formatting toolbar thing that I guess is new to the 5.x series).

No ribbon.

Here, have a playlist URL that lets you watch the demo videos directly from YouTube instead of using the embedded videos in TFA.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0pdzjvYW9RHSwdRnZfaxAWICrkBrQl7k

Comment Re:Current use != Original intent w/proof (Score 1) 132

Seriously, you can't see the difference between a Police officer finding evidence at a crime scene, and a Police officer reading your personal emails to find something? Are you really trying to claim that the founders were so goddamn naive they believed that people in power are, and would always be altruistic?

There is a world of difference between a random search, and a warrant being issued due to evidence related to a crime. If you don't see the difference and are not just a troll, I hope your masters pay you well.

Comment Current use != Original intent w/proof (Score 1) 132

I have to point out the obvious, which is that there has been nearly 2 centuries of people pumping money into propaganda to convince people that the Constitution and Bill of Rights means what they want to mean, not what was intended originally. That people continue believing increasing levels of bullshit is not a surprise, incremental change is how things always happen. Propaganda and Sociology are not "new" sciences by any stretch of the imagination, but also not something normal people get taught about.

So read some history and figure out what was intended by the 5th, and you will find that it does not match the currently used "spun" definition. I'll give you an easy one, which history will verify repeatedly. If you need citation start at the Federalist papers, Biographies, and court documents from the US and England.

At the time of the Revolution, British soldiers were searching people's houses for things like diaries. If you had the wrong shit written in yours, you were executed and sometimes sent to a nice London jail. Vague writings were the best, because a person disliked could easily be charged with a crime based on their own words with invented outcomes. Speculative thought crimes like "he was thinking treason" were as common as false allegations, "see he was mad at the Smithers so killed that guy everyone thought was mauled by the bear". It was all about who disliked you and what dirt they could find on you (nothing new there). The limitations in the Constitution were intended to prevent the Government or an agent from searching your crap and using it to possibly invent a crime based on their findings. The part about "speech" is a newly formed pile of shit which people are gullible and ignorant enough to believe.

History will show you the "meaning" of all of the wording in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Contrary to bullshitter and con-artists statements, there is no ambiguity or accidental language in the documents. None, zero, zip, nada, nill, null, etc.. etc...

Comment Re:Let's get real (Score 1) 209

My point was to correct the possible perception you or anyone else has about "tiny" nukes being something the DPRK has, or would be able to use in any offensive capability. Your casual use of the technology has the potential of inflate the fear mongering, especially next statements about "nuclear or thermonuclear warheads" and lack of mention of "cost" for any of those things. The 3rd world economy of the DPRK, and tyrannical government, mean that they do not have the budge or manpower for any meaningful development of WMDs like nukes.

Comment Re:Let's get real (Score 3, Interesting) 209

I know next to nothing about nuclear or thermonuclear warheads other than that a modern thermonuclear warhead is pretty damn small. But I suspect that downsizing a bomb once you have one that works probably is not that big a deal. e.g. the US exploded its first nuclear weapon in July 1945. By 1953 the US was deploying a nuclear artillery system. I think it unlikely that the warhead for that was more than a few hundred kg. But what do I know?

That first sentence is honest, and ignorance is easily cured. "Modern" warheads owned by the US are not the same as "Modern" warheads owned by any other nation, especially the DPRK. The US spends, and has spent, massive amounts of money over a massive amount of time developing a nuclear weapons program.

Nuclear "artillery" is costly beyond belief, extremely limited in usability, only effective if there are other larger backers. It is the ultimate weapon of last resort when defending, but has almost zero use outside of that. Time to set up, maintenance of the munitions, handling of the munition, and protecting the munition are complex and costly activities. A tiny warhead mishandled or sabotaged in a base destroys the base and everyone in it.

The DPRK is once again being used for fear mongering. Fear mongering is the main reason why nobody has gone to war to end the regime. The US, UK, and everyone else in NATO loves the DPRK because "scare the populace to get what you want without revolt". China and Russia like them because the west military build up means they can justify their own investments in military power. The recent fear of the H-Bomb is just to convince people that the DPRK can now use small nukes (which it can't), and the fear mongering because of their current missiles, which are SCUD missiles, which can't even launch a tiny satellite... laughable.

Comment Well (Score 1) 163

Technically they shouldn't read ANYONE'S secrets. Having a secret is not a crime. You're supposed to catch criminals who break the law, not mine people's data and extrapolate to see if they have done anything wrong. Because after all, everyone (including FBI agents) is guilty of something.

Comment Re:Gratis but not free (Score 1) 56

A ToS change would almost certainly only apply to future versions/updates to the engine.

Oh? How about "We've decided we no longer wish to continue the service due to reorganization". Boom, there goes your app. What are you going to do - sue? Read the TOS. Once you get past the arbitration instead of law-suit clauses you'll see that they hold all the cards and you hold none. Yeah ok, you might save yourself a few weeks' of coding. In return for which you become their little bitch.

Comment Re:Gratis but not free (Score 2) 56

If by empowering you mean it binds you and restricts you, then yeah, it's empowering. Amazon is a corporation. Lumberyard is a fraction of a fraction of their revenue. One day a new manager will come along and change the TOS and you will be completely fucked with no recourse. By all means, develop away.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Now this is a totally brain damaged algorithm. Gag me with a smurfette." -- P. Buhr, Computer Science 354

Working...