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


Forgot your password?
Polls on the front page of Slashdot? Is the world coming to an end?! Nope; read more about it. ×

Comment: Re:Does US have any real jurisdiction over FIFA? (Score 1) 187

by Nidi62 (#49822811) Attached to: Indicted Ex-FIFA Executive Cites Onion Article In Rant Slamming US

Nope he means football, but not the weedy version of rugby played in America by precious little flowers who are so delicate they need to wear helmets and have a breather after every throw of the ball,

Having played both football and rugby at the collegiate level (football on the organized school team, rugby on the school's club team) I exerted way more energy in football than I did rugby. Of course, since I played offensive line, I was essentially in a scrum every play of the game. When I found out you spend half the time in rugby just jogging around I was in heaven.

Comment: Re:You don't stop terrorists by patting people dow (Score 1) 315

" transport on the system is not a right."

Uh, yeah it is, at least being transported without being searched by the gov't is a right. Judge Napolitano on Fox News went into great detail about this, with what they are doing being absolutely positively illegal with respect to the 4th amendment. The gov't just can't legally do what they're doing. The AIRLINES can institute, pay for, and run a TSA-like security system, but not the gov't.

No it's not. Cause any kind of disturbance and the airlines can and will put you on their own internal "no-fly" lists. These are kept in addition to federal no-fly lists. It could be something as simple as getting shit-faced and belligerent ona flight to claiming you hacked a plane and changed engine power(I can guarantee you that guy will have a hard time booking a flight on a US domestic airline any time soon). If it's a right, it is one that is very easily lost.

Comment: Re:Good study, bad hack (Score 1) 255

by Nidi62 (#49792487) Attached to: How a Scientist Fooled Millions With Bizarre Chocolate Diet Claims

That said, from personal experience (as someone who lost 60 lbs by making changes to my diet) chocolate does have beneficial effect on weight loss, in that at a very least consuming smaller amounts of chocolate (in terms of calories) satisfies craving for sweets better than consuming much larger (in terms of calories) amount of other sweet foods (such as pastries). Just this benefit alone is sufficient to recommend (prudent) use of chocolate in a calorie-controlled diet.

I lost 30lbs in 3 months in college once I was done playing football, and there were 2 main tricks that I used: I didn't keep lots of food in the apartment, and I changed how much I ate. I didn't cut anything out, just reduced portions (slight reductions for some, drastic reductions for others). If you cut something out completely like sweets, you will crave them and eventually break your diet and binge. Instead, keep a pack of fun-sized bars (well, for me it was whatever the seasonal-shaped Reese's was) and if you really need a snack or are craving chocolate eat one. The key to a successful diet, just like everything else in life, is moderation and a little self-control.

Comment: Re:Collapse (Score 2) 139

by Nidi62 (#49789645) Attached to: Scientists Reverse Aging In Human Cell Lines

Immortality would realistically cause the collapse of human civilization. Massive cullings would have to be undertaken. Riots, revolts, revolutions would all ensue. Economies would destabilize as the retirement system would lose all meaning. Jobs would never be vacated.

Seriously. If there is anything that might have wiped out all other intelligent species in the galaxy, it's the scientific achievement of immortality.

Or it will jumpstart human exploration and settlement of the universe. If a person can comfortably and productively live for centuries then it will be much easier for us to send manned missions to the rest of the planets in our solar system as well as enable us to explore outside our solar system. Who needs ftl travel when you can live 500-1000 years?

Comment: Re:Are they LEOs (Score 3, Interesting) 104

Isn't this the thing the Second amendment was supposed to prevent?

As I understand it, the 2nd Amendment was supposed to ensure against invasion from the British Empire by keeping the population armed, so any attempt at invasion would allow the armed population to spark a popular insurrection.

I think the founders also feared the power (both militarily and politically) of a large standing army. If the US is invaded, armed locals operating as militia can either harry the invaders or supplement the small professional army for local engagements.

Comment: Re:What about the dogs? (Score 1) 77

by Nidi62 (#49742729) Attached to: New Chrome Extension Uses Sound To Share URLs Between Devices

Which just doesn't matter in this case, because I've never seen a smart person with one of those things. No technical person would have one. They don't make logical sense. Of course normal people don't own things that can just hurt them any time at random. So many children are killed or maimed by dogs per year. That is why smart people stay the hell away from those things.

Are you that much of a psychopath that you even treat animals so cruelly they can turn on you in an instant? Or just so introverted that you can't handle any interaction with another social creature? And I guess smart people don't drive cars, go swimming, or hell, even make their kids take a bath because so many children are killed by them every year. Why even have kids, since so many die in childbirth every year. Remember, dogs evolved and were bred to live alongside humans. To most people, the companionship of dogs far outweighs the miniscule risk that the dogs will cause any kind of bodily harm. Either you just hate dogs or you have an overly inflated sense of risk, but I am pretty sure I know which one it is.

Comment: Re:Not all bad (Score 2) 328

by Nidi62 (#49727019) Attached to: Battle To Regulate Ridesharing Moves Through States

That's a very strange sentiment, given your sig. You don't actually advocate that governments require that, do you? I think we can all agree that the majority of business on Uber or Lyft is not ridesharing under your definition. Drivers are going to destinations to pick up fares. So maybe the semantics are off on "ridesharing." But in terms of the demographics, I think a much higher proportion of Uber drivers are able to part time taxi in addition to going to school or another job. In that sense, they are sharing their car and time with the Uber/Lyft pool, as opposed to a full time taxi driver with a bright yellow taxi cab. The fact that you're in another person's non-taxi vehicle makes it different enough that it merits it's own word. And I can't think of a name that's catchier and more apt than ridesharing. I'm open to suggestions, though.

There is a term for that: a part-time job. If a rose by any other name smells just as sweet, then a cab by any other name smells just as....bad? In any case, once you are trying to derive an income from driving passengers around you are a taxi or a for-hire car, all of which have regulations in place. It's fine if you want to have a side job, a lot of people do. But the simple fact that it isn't your primary source of income or what you spend most of your time doing doesn't mean you get to ignore laws and regulations. And yes, I would be fine with the government classifying Uber as ridesharing if they did something similar to what I described. But currently, Uber perfectly fits the definition of a taxi service.

Comment: Re: Battle to Regulate Free Market (Score 1) 328

by Nidi62 (#49726601) Attached to: Battle To Regulate Ridesharing Moves Through States

WTF? Interesting? The seller disagrees with the bidders on the value of the product and declines to sell it. The seller may have a point, the seller may be an idiot.

THe person I replied to said auctions have no price controls. A reserve is a price control. If the reserve is higher than the highest bid, then obviously it is priced above market value but they will not sell below that set price.

Comment: Re:Mixed reaction (Score 4, Insightful) 328

by Nidi62 (#49726055) Attached to: Battle To Regulate Ridesharing Moves Through States

Yet as a member of the public, I have no interest in this. Why does my opinion that the rights of others matter more than your claim of a so-called "public interest".

If an Uber driver has been taking stimulants to stay up and drive for 48 hours straight crashes into your car, or hits you trying to cross the street, would you take an interest then? Everyone else certainly does when you are injured so severely you can't work and have to draw disability for the rest of your life and we are paying for it. Things like that happened regularly in industries such as taxis and trucking, with overworked drivers causing fatal accidents. That is why regulations were enacted. They still happen, but they are less frequent and the drivers are severely punished when they do so.

Comment: Re:Not all bad (Score 4, Informative) 328

by Nidi62 (#49725957) Attached to: Battle To Regulate Ridesharing Moves Through States

The summary makes it sound like all of the bills are AGAINST ride sharing... but that's not the case. For instance, in Massachusetts(which is highlighted in the summary) Uber is actively campaigning FOR the regulation bill.


Because the bill states once and for all that ride sharing is a legal activity. Yes, it puts some protections in place: but not much beyond what Uber already provides.

As someone that uses Uber quite a bit (2-3 times per month) I welcome the new legislation as long as it allows Uber to continue to operate. Regulation is not all bad, as long as it is fair and reasonable.

If the driver of a vehicle is not going to the vicinity of your destination whether you are his passenger or not, then it is not ridesharing. It is a paid taxi service or a hired car. If Uber wants to call themselves a rideshare company, then require drivers to register a destination before they can see potential fares, allow them to only take fares going to the same vicinity as their registered destination, and do not allow them to pick up more fares for a new destination (they can drop off a fare along their route and pick up a new one along the same route however) until they have reached their original destination, checked in, and registered a new destination. There: now you are ridesharing.

Comment: Re:Stop calling it that! (Score 1) 328

by Nidi62 (#49725769) Attached to: Battle To Regulate Ridesharing Moves Through States

It is NOT ridesharing! Ridesharing is when you share a ride with someone. These are people who are being paid to bring you somewhere, but they don't plan on going there too!

Ridesharing is perhaps carpooling to work. Or maybe a student hopping a ride with another student in college to go home for break.

The idea is they hope if they keep repeating it people will think it's true. Like the War on Christmas, or the Kardashians being famous.

If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization.