Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

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:Just looked her up (Score 1) 145

by 93 Escort Wagon (#49366901) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient

Except she's not speaking to her area of expertise. Her opinion on what the target should be for limiting temperature rise is not any more relevant than, say, an electrical engineer's or a chemist's.

If the UN wants to issue authoritative statements about the science, they should have an actual climate scientist in charge.

Comment: Climate never STOPS changing (Score 2, Interesting) 145

by argStyopa (#49366489) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient

Of COURSE it isn't sufficient.

When - ever - has an activist said "yeah, well, what's being done is pretty much good, yeah. I'm happy. I guess I don't have much to be upset about any more"?

Here's a hint: if there's one thing I can guarantee the climate won't do, is be static.

Comment: Re:Simplr math ... (Score 1) 170

by sumdumass (#49366337) Attached to: Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina Near Launching Presidential Bid

I doubt that. She seems like less of a bitch than Hillary, is more media and business friendly in ways Hillary simply tries to put on a show about, and not too many people outside the tech world actually hate her.

Outside of her name sounding foreign, I would think she has just as much chance as any other woman running. I bet she would be picked as a vice president candidate too- if the primaries don't get too ugly.

Comment: Re:Seems unlikely to work (Score 1) 45

by sumdumass (#49366231) Attached to: Australian Government Outlines Website-Blocking Scheme

I don't know why it should be easier to get a conviction, the laws were either broken and there is proof of it or there isn't. I would hate to be in a court system that decides you were warned 3 times by means outside the court so you are more likely guilty on the same evidence.

Now I can see where the modus operandi is used to determine Mes Rea but I'm not sure the type of copyright laws being addressed need that level of detail. Displaying the willingness to subvert a blocking mechanism would show intent to violate the copyright.

Comment: Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb (Score 1) 146

by ScentCone (#49366021) Attached to: Graphene Light Bulbs Coming To Stores Soon

That is not "market economics" but improvements in production ...

Why the hell do you think that people who make things bother to improve production? Because if they don't someone else will, and they'll lose their market. You really do lead a sheltered life, don't you. I can tell you've never actually made anything, or been tuned into the bottom line of any business entity that does. You should. You'd learn a lot.

Comment: Re: Best buy (Score 1) 183

by sumdumass (#49365027) Attached to: Best Buy Kills Off Future Shop

I expect either a level of competency in looking the answers up or level of humility and just saying "I don't know" when they do not know. But I'm not sure where the difference is in lieing to your face to sell something and ignorantly lieing just to up sell something.

Here is another great example of an experience I had with Best Buy. I was looking for a specific US robotics hardware modem and their website said they had one in stock. This was for an old linux box that served as a fax server using hylafax and was a direct replacement for existing hardware (spec'd because of local availability). After three people suggesting I use a win modem and looking completely blank like a deer staring into headlights when I explained the difference between a hardware modem and winmodem and told them I needed raw serial communications, they got someone from the geeksquad to assist. After giving him a model number and explaining why I needed that specific model, he told me not only was there nothing like that which they carried, but that modems use the PCI bus and would be incapable of serial communication. He said I would need to order one from a vendor specific channel. I called a coworker and asked him if he could find another locally on line so I could pick on up. Turns out best buy was the only one he could find so my coworker ordered it online for in store pick up. I went to the counter right next to where we were and said I was there to pick up an order for XXXX. They said it was still being pulled but would be there in about 5 minutes. 5 minutes passed and I walked out the door with what I originally came in to get an hour ago only to be accosted by some idiot at the door wanting to match my receipt to the product in the bag.

I've got lots of stories about best buy. I prefer to purchase local when possible but have such a hatred for their idiocy that I will buy online if I don't need something right now and cannot find it at one of the other stores that dabble in electronics. How others put up with it is beyond me.

Comment: Fighting yesterday's battles (Score -1) 293

by roman_mir (#49364667) Attached to: Why the Final Moments Inside a Cockpit Are Heard But Not Seen

We are all pretty good at fighting yesterday's battles. This happened in Europe, but in the USA there was time people could fly with only a ticket and not any ID, they could bring their guns with them too. Now you cannot have a gun, the cockpits are locked with farely strong doors because everybody is scared of terrorists, they didn't even have an axe on board, just a crowbar. Apparently the captain tried breaking the door with a crowbar, I wonder if he tried breaking the wall beside the door. Flying is completely fucked up, TSA harasses you and then you don't know if a psychotic pilot will kill you anyway.

How about TRYING FREEDOM for a change? Bring your ticket, allow people to take their guns with them and keep axes on board while removing insane cockpit doors?

Sure, everything can still go wrong, at least you are not just a sardin in a can, hoping not to be eaten this time around.

Comment: Re:No biggie (Score 1) 45

by gweihir (#49364471) Attached to: Australian Government Outlines Website-Blocking Scheme

TOR has this as one of its project-goals. And since they are in an arms-race with the "Chinese wall" firewall, I expect TOR has quite a head-start.

Of course, it is a sign how much of a problem western governments have become these days if one seriously needs to contemplate using TOR to fight back against them.

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 262

by ScentCone (#49364317) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

They also said their records are poor in general. "We don't have a record of X" thus does NOT rule out X having existed in the past.

State Department IT staff are on the record having told her multiple times that her method of communicating was preventing them from archiving her official email as required. Are you saying that despite the steps she took to make sure that no mail sent to and from her counterparts all around the world, to and from other agencies and branches of government (including the White House) , and to and from the well known mile-long list of donors to her family enterprise and political operation, that somehow there was a magic link between her private server and some archiving mechanism at State? A link that you think might exist, but which SHE acknowledges did not exist, and which some how - despite no email address involving being used in such communication - magically somehow got archived at State, and not one single example of such can be found by multiple investigative teams? And why would they find it - preventing it from getting into that system is exactly why she built a path around it. State's archives have copious correspondence from hundreds and hundreds of their other officials, staff, contractors, previous cabinet appointees and related users - just not a single scrap from her? Of course they don't: she didn't use that system.

And SHE HERSELF says that she thinks having corresponded with staffers inside State was a good enough way to retain those messages. She hand-picked reporters and pre-approved questions in the only Q&A she's allowed on the subject, and so conveniently was able to avoid being asked how she thought that method would apply when corresponding with people like Blumenthal (who hasn't denied that the leaked emails were his, by the way). Which is why she's never had to address the fact she wasn't personally taking any steps to CC or otherwise mirror all of the mail sent to and from her private server, as required by law. She hasn't mentioned CCing her mailbox that because at her direction, State's IT never even established an email account for her to which she would mirror her mail.

When finally capitulating to demands that her public records actually be made available, she didn't print out 55,000 pages of them because of a failure by the staff and systems at State, she printed them out because that was the only way she was willing to make them available. She could have forwarded them electronically, in their entirety, as required (so that, as the law requires, a government archivist can evaluate the messages and cull the official from the private). But no - she and her lawyers opted for a method that would absolutely maximize the additional delays in allowing other people to look through the records, would remove helpful header information, and would add untold thousands of hours of taxpayer-funded work to turn the documents back into searchable form. That was a deliberate choice that added work on her part in order to make the process more difficult and slow for investigators and the press, who had been requesting the documents for years.

I can only find Republicans claiming that, not objective (non-political) examiners.

Do you consider the investigation run congress when it was controlled by HER own party (which established after spending millions of dollars looking into related things, that there were NO such records at State) to have also been polticized against her? Now - under pressure - she's dumped hardcopies of the records that actually did exist all along (well, just some of them), and investigators who - unlike the last ones - aren't in her pocket for political gain say that the records have large date gaps. Unlike HER, they are conducting activity that will be entirely in the public record. When the investigators looking into this say something, you and they know that they will be fact checked to death by her political operatives. Despite her deliberate attempts to hide her communications from standard public review, you are giving her the benefit of the doubt ... but when a long-time career prosecutor (with a sterling record) and now congressman who knows that everything he says will be subject to endless review tells you what's present (and absent) in what are now public records available soon for YOU to look at, too, you're assuming he's lying?

What's that have to do with points being discussed?

It goes to establishing her deliberate actions in this area. In cases of private communications being mixed in with official ones, government archivists are supposed to look at ALL records, separate the official from the private, and return the private records to the person who blended them together. She knew this, and took actions to deliberately prevent such review. And knowing that subpoenas were coming, destroyed all evidence of how such decisions were made.

"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990