Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Sit down, shut up, and do your work... until... (Score 1) 165 165

So I get to do all of the work of an HR benefits person, a secretary, an accountant, a corporate lawyer, AND my own job on top of that, plus get no vacation benefits or sick days, and get to pay a big chunk more in extra taxes, all for a bump in pay? It sounds like considerably more bookkeeping. I'd rather do the job I'm specialized in, than do 5 different jobs badly.

Comment Re: Wouldn't apply to Netflix (Score 1) 85 85

What Netflix didn't count on was the fact that residential broadband isn't very profitable to begin with

That doesn't line up with what I've heard- "The cable distribution giants like Time Warner Cable and Comcast are already making a 97 percent margin on their “almost comically profitable” Internet services, according to Craig Moffet, an analyst at the Wall Street firm Bernstein Research. "

Comment Re:Other opponents (Score 1) 446 446

I think GMO labels hurt consumers. The name "genetically modified" is disingenuous to begin with. There's a good chance that everything you have ever eaten has been genetically modified through evolution by human intervention. To throw some food into a category of "dangerous", because humans used a slightly more scientific approach, with absolutely no evidence of harm, that just so happens to be the cheapest and most productive source of food, would drive consumers away from GMO foods, and then drive farmers to producing far less food in total.

Everybody in rich countries would pay more for food, while people in poorer countries would literally starve to death because of those labels. The labels wouldn't inform consumers of anything. Informed consumers would not care about the label, while uninformed consumers (the vast majority, yourself included) would be actively killing people across the globe with their ignorance and fear.

Comment That guy (Score 2, Informative) 334 334

I've yet to see anything from O'Keefe that would suggest he's a conspiracy nut.

The guy who got famous by dressing up as a pimp to fabricate proof that a housing organization for the poor was involved in a conspiracy to promote underage prostitution?
The same guy who broke into a senators office, to wiretap her phones, to prove that she wasn't "listening" to her constituents?
And the same guy who recently lost a libel lawsuit against that same senator, claiming that she implied he committed a felony. (His plea bargain reduced the charges to a misdemeanor instead of being a felony)
The same guy who filmed himself illegally entering the country, smuggling people and material, to prove that ISIS terrorists are also sneaking across? And then after publishing video of himself smuggling, is outraged that Customs agents see him as a potential smuggler?

Everything he does suggests he's a conspiracy nut..

Comment Re:Statism vs. Libertarianism again (Score 3, Insightful) 123 123

Why should an ideological stance on the regulation of guns and computers be the same? They clearly are different tools with much different uses.

Am I allowed to oppose dumping raw mercury into rivers & streams, if I support freedom to travel by airplane? After all, both are forms of pollution in the same sense that computers and guns can both be used as weapons.

Comment Re:I get a call EVERY DAY from cardmember services (Score 1) 215 215

I practice my role-playing and voice acting. One day I'm grandpa fumbling for a card, and yelling at children in the yard, the next day I'll practice my french accent and talk about cheese. The fun part is seeing how far you can go before they give up. The trick is to respond to questions in a way in the first few minutes that make them think they've got a big fish on the hook, then slowly escalate the absurd responses. "My mistress demands I hurt myself thrice daily with this card. Please hang on a minute while I remove it from the spot of punishment." I consider it a victory if I get them to lose their temper and cuss me out.

Comment Re:Presumably you've never been shot at (Score 1) 423 423

You seem to acknowledge that the good guy with a gun, most likely, cannot kill or fully disable the shooter in this situation. So now you have to calculate, how many people could potentially be saved in that scenario, versus how many people would be killed if handguns are more widespread. If 5% of the populace is armed now, what happens to the death by gun rates when its 10%, 20%, 75%, 100%? What kind of curved graph does it make? I think most people would agree that 0.01% in the hands of criminals only is bad, just as 100% in the hands of everyone is equally bad. Where is the ideal spot? The thing is, that most people who want guns, already have them. Does it help society to force guns into the hands of people who have chosen not to carry them? Will cheaper guns lead to more people being armed and a safer society? Will the number of random shootings go down by allowing anyone, including the mentally ill, to have easier access to guns without waiting periods?

I've never understood this part of the "more guns" argument: Where the hell is this mysterious population of "good guys" that want to carry guns and would be responsible gun owners, but currently can't get a gun?

P.S. Several school shootings (like Columbine) have taken place at schools with an armed police presence.

Comment Re:bans on knowledge rarely work (Score 1, Insightful) 423 423

ONE gun in the hands of a ordinary citizen in the movie theater, could have prevented many deaths.

Yes, of course, you've figured it all out. Because an asshole who decides exactly when he can spring an ambush on unsuspecting people, hiding behind cover & wearing body armor, can instantly be taken out by an average handgun holder. Seriously?

You are aware that highly trained and experienced soldiers almost always fail and die under those circumstances right? The shooter has more firepower, better armor, better cover, and the advantage of surprise. I would put the odds somewhere in the 1000 to 1 range for the handgun winning in that scenario. Wtf is it with you rambo types thinking one handgun will just magically win in a firefight?

Comment Re:Responses (Score 1, Insightful) 251 251

For the first example, this will happen anytime a site has to generate a password for you, that is to say, millions of times a day. The site has to get the password to you, and can do so by generally email, sms, telephone call, or an in person visit. The same 3 letter agency is monitoring all of those electronic methods, so it really doesn't matter which you use, but email is the cheapest by far. The local network/pc is always going to be the weakest link, so use https for webmail. Splitting sensitive information into two emails makes it much harder for the bad guys. Enough so that it is standard practice for the banking industry and is part of PCI compliance transmitting credit card numbers.

For the second example- so what? It's a one-time temporary password that you picked yourself. The risk of a compromise is minimal, the reward for a hacker is minimal. Is it poor security practice... maybe? But you have to weigh the cost-benefit ratio.

Comment Re:Anthrax (Score 1) 500 500

Which anthrax attack are you talking about? The one many years ago, or the attack from a few weeks ago, where our own government sent live anthrax spores through the postal system to unsuspecting labs, exposing dozens of people at minimum, to test if they were ready for just such an attack? (Yes, this really just happened, and it hasn't gotten nearly the airtime it deserves, since it was a terrorist attack perpetrated by the government)

Comment Re:Does This Make Sense? (Score 1) 318 318

Maybe because its so obvious to everyone else. Since we are talking about cars, lets use a computer analogy- is it easier to update and maintain a software application on a single very large server that serves a lot of people? Or is it easier to update and maintain that same application on 100,000 different computers? If you do decide your application needs an update (or tightening of emissions in this context), you only have to modify one source, rather than 100,000.

Comment Re:Does This Make Sense? (Score 4, Insightful) 318 318

100% of gasoline powered cars rely on fossil fuels
~66% of electricity in the us is generated using fossil fuels, 39% is from coal

In some sense we are trading the smoke-plumes around, but keep in mind it is vastly more efficient to regulate and control the pollution out of one stack than one million different little stacks.

Comment Re:Good thing too! (Score 4, Insightful) 225 225

This only means they didn't need to cheat to win that specific game. There is a preponderance of evidence that they were both knowingly and intentionally breaking the rules. This is called cheating to most people who aren't from the New England area. There is an established pattern of cheating through the entire season, which throws into question their "championship".

The tree of research must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of bean counters. -- Alan Kay