Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:The Moon program (Score 4, Interesting) 71

Right. It's the Congress critters owned by the United Launch Alliance that are holding up the funding. They would rather give nearly a billion dollars to prop up the Russian space program then let SpaceX get a lead on the current Boeing/Lockheed-Martin (ULA) monopoly.

NASA gave Boeing $4.2 billion for it's CTS-100 crew system, and $2.6 billion to SpaceX for the Dragon. Add in $900 million to the Russians to send US astronauts to the ISS and it's $3 billion extra to make sure that Boeing will remain the incumbent. And don't forget the the CTS-100 has never been launched, while the Dragon has been to the ISS multiple times.

So even though ULA sat on their ass for decades and used Russian motors for their Atlas V they are still the preferred vendor. So if you have enough clout in Congress and every manager in NASA and the Air Force knows they can spend their post-government career in a well paid civilian job at Boeing, you can sleep easy because the government will spend whatever it takes to keep you fat and happy.

No capitalism in sight. It's the insiders giving each other hands jobs. Business as usual.

Comment Re:Hate to say this but... (Score 1) 99

Living in the past? Are you traveling at relativistic speeds perhaps?

Hey, Rip Van Winkle, it 2015, not 1980. Simple math. To make it fair, let's say 1990. 2015 minus 1990 equals 35 years.

No change in electronics has happened since 1990, according to you. Are you posting here using your ASR-33 teletype or your DEC VT-100? Just wondering.

Comment Re:oh, man. Prepare for another round. (Score 2, Insightful) 85

So how many big US banks have assumed huge risks for short term profits since Sorbanes-Oxley passed? You talk as if it was a plague of locusts that mysteriously descended out of the sky for no discernible reasons. It passed because Wall Street fucked up the entire world economy out of incompetence and greed.

Were you asleep since 2008 or are you mentally deficient? Those are the only two reasons I can think of for your idiocy.

Given the chance, big business behaves like meth freak with rabies. They are not trustworthy. There is no such thing as "business ethics".

There is only one goal: making the people at the top as rich as possible. Nothing else counts. This is why 10% of the profits of large US companies go to the CEO. That's insane. No where else in the world is this true.

Even after Sorbanes-Oxley the banking sector remains unchanged. We've seen international currency rigging, wholesale tax cheating and money laundering. There have been tens of billions of dollars of fines. It's still the same rigged game.

Sorbanes-Oxley is too weak. Until CEOs and board of director members go to jail it will never stop. So far no one has gone to jail. Not one person. The only people who do time are people convicted on insider trading, which is a joke. That is petty crime compared to what people like Mozilo did at Countrywide Mortgage.

If we are ever going to ride ourselves of our completely corrupt economic system a lot of very rich people are going to have to spend decades in jail and be stripped of every penny they stole. And we are going to have to break up the monopolies and de facto cartels that dominate the economy. Only then will we get back to functioning capitalism. If you think that our economy is capitalistic then you are truly delusional.

Submission + - Appeals Court Rules that FTC can Sue for Data Breaches->

Required Snark writes: After data breaches exposed information on over 600,000 customers, a U.S. appeals court said Wyndham Hotels must face a suit from the Federal Trade Commission over failing to secure its computers. Between April 2008 and January 2010, Russian hackers breached Wyndham’s network on three occasions and obtained personal and financial data.

Wyndham argued that if the FTC’s authority extends that far, the agency has the authority to “regulate the locks on hotel room doors.” The court called that argument “alarmist to say the least.”

“And it invites the tart retort that, were Wyndham a supermarket, leaving so many banana peels all over the place that 619,000 customers fall hardly suggests it should be immune from liability,” the court said in its opinion.

Link to Original Source

Comment Re:Silly Person (Score 0) 212

It's easy to understand: since corporations became people, you are no longer a person.

Corporations have the resources to define how the law is applied. You, as an individual, do not. So when a corporation decides, you have to live with that result. Your so called "inalienable rights" have been revoked.

Of course it's not solely corporate power that has caused this too happen. Warrantless surveillance, civil forfeiture, arbitrary voting restrictions and the like are all part of the package.

You can make yourself a lot more comfortable by understanding that you are a peasant, not a citizen in a democracy. If you can see through the propaganda you've been fed and comprehend your true position it all makes perfect sense.

Comment Karl Sims: Evolved Virtual Creatures (Score 1) 30

Sims presented similar work at SigGraph in 1994. He did physical simulations using a Connection Machine CM-5.

This video shows results from a research project involving simulated Darwinian evolutions of virtual block creatures. A population of several hundred creatures is created within a supercomputer, and each creature is tested for their ability to perform a given task, such the ability to swim in a simulated water environment. Those that are most successful survive, and their virtual genes containing coded instructions for their growth, are copied, combined, and mutated to make offspring for a new population. The new creatures are again tested, and some may be improvements on their parents. As this cycle of variation and selection continues, creatures with more and more successful behaviors can emerge.

The creatures shown are results from many independent simulations in which they were selected for swimming, walking, jumping, following, and competing for control of a green cube.

Sims is a MacArthur Grant winner. He has continued working with evolutionary algorithms and iterated function systems. His home page is here.

Comment Get a life (Score 1) 44

Someone is deeply concerned about the existence/nonexistence of a flat area on the side of a smart watch? Really?

This falls so far below the standard of "News for Nerds" that it is an embarrassment. What part of the Slashdot demographic gives a rip? The fashion conscious? Here? (chokes laughing).

So the flat edge effects the clock speed? Number of cores? Memory? Battery life? Connectivity?

Tell me. I absolutely do not have the fainest idea of why this got posted. It's too stupid to be a Shashvertisement. Is it due to drugs, drink, too much caffeine and lack of sleep on the part of editors? A cry for help? Or perhaps too many brain cells have died because of a combination of junk food and constant florescent lighting?

Whatever. Just don't ever pull this kind of crap again.You just make yourself look as dumb as you are.

Comment Thoughtcrime (Score 5, Insightful) 112

Thought Police

The Thought Police (thinkpol in Newspeak) are the secret police of the fictional superstate, Oceania, in George Orwell's 1949 dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Orwell's Thought Police are charged with uncovering and punishing "thoughtcrime" and thought-criminals. They use psychological methods and omnipresent surveillance (such as telescreens) to search, find, monitor, and arrest members of society who could potentially challenge authority and the status quo -- even if only by thought -- hence the name Thought Police. They use terror and torture to achieve their ends.

"You have to manifest a criminal intent to further the aims prohibited by the statute."

So the authorities decide if you are thinking correctly: "... there's also the question of intent there: repeating speech is not automatically an endorsement. ..." and "... I believe many people may believe terrorism is self-evidently immoral."

So as soon as an authority figure accuses you of having "intent" you are guilty because it is "self-evidently immoral."

Now consider how the TSA operates. We obviously have nothing to fear from a gang of unaccountable self selected guardians who need to prove that they are doing something to justify their existence. And the FBI has never engaged in illegal activity by spying on legitimate political activity (MLK), tried to blackmail leaders to influence their activities (MLK), engaged in black ops including violence in order to discredit political movements and individuals (COINTELPRO) or conspired with criminals (Whitey Bulger) and then covered up illegal acts, including drug dealing and murder.

We have nothing to fear. They never lie and they are always right.

Comment Why are you arguing about facts? (Score 1) 182

Really, how out of contact with the real world are Slashdot readers? Fact are irrelevant in this situation.

This is sensationalistic news. Look at the components: drugs, a murdered young woman, gruesome botched corpse disposal and a violent TV show known world wide. Who give a crap about anything else? Not the people who wrote the story and not the people viewing it. Trying to see if any of it makes sense is just spoiling everyone's fun.

It could turn out that the story was scrambled and what really happened was that a dispute over clipping a hedge lead to the death of a pet dog and someone tried to get rid of the evidence in the trash and nobody would care. Nothing could of happened and it was all made up and nobody would care. A retraction could be printed, but it would in microscopic text two weeks later in the margin of the obituaries and it wouldn't make any difference. The story got a headline, some people took the bait and read it and that is all that counts.

Grow up. Thinking about news is obsolete.

Comment Re:Actually, RIAA isn't far off base (Score 1) 109

Yes, you're right. Because killing the messenger always works.

RIAA/MPAA/monopolistic-whatever could wipe peer-to-peer communications off the face of the earth (and out to geosynchronous orbit) and piracy rates would stay the same. Same for DRM. The underlying issue is that bits are fungible. If you can copy a document file you can copy a film or music file. This even precedes bits: they used to make dual video decks so that it was really easy to make illegal copies of video tapes.

So going after a specific piece of software or protocol is flat out stupid. All it does in screw up legitimate users. Those who want to cheat remain unaffected.

What the monopolists would like is the solution being tried in North Korea: house to house searches.

“The local propaganda departments are getting inminban [people’s unit] heads to collect cassettes and CDs from people’s homes and are combing through them,” a source speaking from inside the country claimed. “If even one song from the banned list is discovered, they incinerate the whole thing.”

The RIAA is jealous. They keep trying to get the equivalent system started here.

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. -- John Kenneth Galbraith