Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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:Bombs? (Score 1) 532

1. With meth or Cocaine you'd have a bunch of amped up religious fanatics going all berseker crazy on you.
2. With heroin or alcohol you'd have a bunch of religious fanatics with no inhibitions going crazy on you.
3. With Meth and heroin amped up religious fanatics with no inhibitions going berseker crazy on you and would be too high to realise they are suposed to fall down when you kill them.
4. it would probably be considered chemical warefare or something equally repugnant.

Comment: Re:ok, so it's not unstoppable (Score 1) 340

by budgenator (#49155919) Attached to: We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees.

The History channel will be happy to learn that they can start planning a few years of Mud Road Truckers, after the permafrost melts.

BARROW, ALASKA, USA Weather report as of 12 minutes ago (22:53 UTC):
        The wind was blowing at a speed of 8.2 meters per second (18.4 miles per hour) from North/Northwest in Barrow, Alaska. The temperature was -12 degrees Celsius (10 degrees Fahrenheit).
February 28, 2015 weather report for
NOME, ALASKA, USA Weather report as of 15 minutes ago (22:53 UTC):
        The wind was blowing at a speed of 8.2 meters per second (18.4 miles per hour) from West/Southwest in Nome, Alaska. The temperature was -14 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit)
FAIRBANKS, ALASKA, USA Weather report as of 11 minutes ago (22:58 UTC):
        The wind was blowing at a speed of 1.5 meters per second (3.5 miles per hour) from West/Northwest in Fairbanks, Alaska. The temperature was -5 degrees Celsius (23 degrees Fahrenheit).
YELLOWKNIFE, CANADA Weather report as of 11 minutes ago (23:00 UTC):
        The wind was blowing at a speed of 3.6 meters per second (8.1 miles per hour) from North/Northwest in Yellowknife, Canada. The temperature was -13 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit).

They may have another season or two left.

Comment: Re:Be Careful What You Wish For (Score 1) 631

by Moridineas (#49145079) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

No question that the EFF is happy overall (after all, they've been fighting for net neutrality for years). (And see my other posts on this article if you care about what else I've said.)

What I'm objecting to--or at least curious about--is why so many posts here are so rabidly partisan and specifically attacking Fox News. I must have missed the memo that Fox News was responsible for anyone and everyone who objects to the FCC's net neutrality rules. Even the EFF objects to parts of the rules and has complained about the FCC's lack of transparency. Are they too just lackeys of Fox News for uncritically objecting to the FCC's rules?

Comment: Re:So when do we get to SEE these rules? (Score 1) 631

by Moridineas (#49145065) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

However, overall they, like what the FCC is proposing.

No question that the EFF likes net neutrality overall. Over the last decade I have probably flip-flopped about a dozen times on the issue. I loathe greater regulatory loads, but I also loathe many of the ISPs and their practices. Ultimately, I am not happy that the FCC can force through these rules (though I think many aspects of the rules are positive). I believe that any rules that affect such a large portion of the economy (and so many people and companies) should be passed as laws by elected officials.

To say that such concerns constitute "serious issues with the vast extent of the FCC's net neutrality rules" is hyperbolic.

The FCC's net neutrality rules cover a vast regulatory area, that's not in any question. From the link I posted, the EFF's letter stated:

But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”

I don't think that my saying the EFF has "serious issues" is hyperbolic when the EFF's wording was "deeply concerned."

Furthermore, if you read the ex parte letter [eff.org] linked, the EFF actually suggests additional regulation by considering what unbundling rules "might be appropriate for the 21st century, in a separate proceeding." If the EFF is so concerned about the "vast extent" of these new rules, why would they also be asking for additional rules?

That, I think (IMHO), is the EFF's mistake. They are looking at the net neutrality rules in purely utilitarian fashion. That's certainly a valid approach and effective, at least in the short term. The EFF often fights against too much law (even stating here that "[w]e strongly believe that the Commission should...engage in light-touch regulation"), while here they are asking for more law and regulatory agency. I think this is a bit myopic on their part, and I hope they do not end up fighting tougher battles against government regulation of the Internet in the future.

It's a lot easier to fight against a corporation than it is against the government (though good luck either way).

Comment: Re:So when do we get to SEE these rules? (Score 1) 631

by Moridineas (#49145053) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

If you want nutbags, you can find them on either side. The second I see the name "Koch brothers" or "Soros" my eyes glaze over. What I fail to understand is why so many people hide behind their partisan beliefs and pretend that when they disagree with other people, the other people are automatically liars, being manipulated, morally bad, etc.

Whatever happened to just disagreeing with somebody?

Comment: Re:Be Careful What You Wish For (Score 2, Informative) 631

by Moridineas (#49140841) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

It absolutely was an objection! I don't see how you could possibly read the EFF's letter and think anything else.

Snippets:

Our message has been clear from the beginning: the FCC has a role to play, but its role must be firmly bounded.

But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”

First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet.

We are days away from a final vote, and it appears that many of the proposed rules will make sense for the Internet. Based on what we know so far, however, the general conduct proposal may not. The FCC should rethink this one.

The EFF clearly has a problem with the general conduct rule. Leave the partisan group-mindedness behind--there are clearly some not-black and some not-white (grey, you might even say) shades here.

Comment: Re:So when do we get to SEE these rules? (Score 2) 631

by Moridineas (#49140273) Attached to: FCC Approves Net Neutrality Rules

I'm a bit curious why the leftist talking points right now seem to solely be focusing on Fox News. Even the EFF had serious issues with the vast extent of the FCC's net neutrality rules, see, e.g.:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules

I do not know what the status is of the general conduct rules. Do you?

Build a system that even a fool can use and only a fool will want to use it.

Working...