Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Re:Easy solution (Score 1) 474

Dealers need to step aside and get out of the fucking way of the sale. It's a stupid business model. There is no value in having a middleman in this process anymore.

No value for ANYBODY. If this is really true:

A salesperson "can sell two gas burners in less than it takes to sell a Leaf," Deutsch says. "It's a lot of work for a little pay."

Then the commission on a $50,000 vehicle is way too low, and it's time the dealerships were seriously shaken up and kicked in the ass.

Somebody is making a ton of dough, and if it's not the salesmen, then it's the bosses in the backroom. I.e., the "overhead".

Comment Re:Cost of access is key. (Score 1) 370

So to cut to the chase. Government opened up new territories, protected them and the trade routes and private business just ruthlessly and very destructively exploited what Government had provided.

Except that's mostly nonsense. Few ships were really "private". East India Company was profitable mainly because it had a Royal charter and was subsidized and protected by the crown. Even most pirates, up to about 200 years ago, were government-sponsored.

Some private enterprise did enter the sail-shipping business in the later years, but the earlier days were almost all government-driven, in one form or another.

Having said all that, I'm not sure I buy that space exploration will follow the same pattern. Government funding is fickle... corporations with smarts are in it for the long haul.

Comment Re:Yeah, I've worked with a few of those (Score 1) 493

Many of the engineers I've worked with stayed on the verge of a nervous breakdown most of the time and were prone to extreme misanthropy. So I'm not surprised they would be attracted to a line of work where they get to blow people up.

OP doesn't explain why in the '60s and '70s US, domestic terrorists were almost exclusively Leftists, who exploded more bombs in 1968 in D.C. alone than all U.S. conservative domestic terrorists, in all parts of the country, in modern history.

Although I do admit that conservative US domestic terrorists as a rule have done rather better at it; tending to blow up real targets rather than toilets.

Comment David Edmundson answers your questions (Score 5, Interesting) 754

All of your questions are easily answered by reading the link provided at the top of the article:

Why does the desktop care who's booted it up?

The Init System "We don't care. It doesn't affect us."

logind Allows KDE to provide user-switching features.

Device Management Allows KDE to have access to your mouse and keyboard without root access and without random applications being able to sniff your keystrokes.

Inhibitor Locks Allows KDE to react to notifications like "the system is about to go down" and delay until a condition is met (example: delay a suspend until the lock screen is displayed and all your desktop windows are hidden behind the lock screen).

timedated and Friends Allows KDE to set time and date without root; allows KDE apps to be notified if time and date gets changed. (KDE currently runs a daemon just to watch for time and date changes, and they would like to get rid of this daemon and simplify their code.)

User Units If KDE takes advantage of the "units" in systemd, then when any part of KDE crashes or hangs, systemd will restart the misbehaving part.

that implies they won't work on *BSD at all. Right?

"Projects like [SystemBSD] bring the interfaces we need to BSD and as it gets more stable we should be able to start distributing features."

So really, choice is being taken away clear across the board. Either that or I'm missing something really big which implies systemd is not a strict dependency.

I encourage you to read the whole article and see what big things you are missing.

I don't know about you, but when I read that article I didn't think "Man those KDE guys are idiots, why would they want any of that." It all makes sense to me.

It's easier for me to believe that SystemD has some merit than to believe that all the Debian core developers are idiots, plus all the Ubuntu developers, and now all the KDE developers and for that matter the Gnome developers.

My biggest concerns with systemd are the monoculture of it all, so projects like UselessD and SystemBSD sound great to me. Force the SystemD guys to document and justify everything, and provide alternatives.

Comment "Doc" Smith's utlimate vacuum tube (Score 2) 108

About 70 years ago, E. E. "Doc" Smith wrote a series of books that are wonderful space opera: the "Lensman" series. The space battles just keep escalating throughout the series, getting more over-the-top.

My favorite plot point: they used the principles of a vacuum tube to make a device whose pieces included grids mounted in the asteroid belt, with more in other orbits closer in to the sun. In effect they turned the inner Solar System into one honking big vacuum tube, and created a weapon that could concentrate a significant fraction of the sun's output onto attacking enemy fleets. This was called the "Sunbeam". (Believe it or not, this wasn't the end of the escalation. The battles got even bigger after that.)

When you say "ultimate" vacuum tube, I think that one is pretty hard to top.

P.S. 200-word crossover fan fiction: what would have happened if the Battlestar Galactica reboot show had found Earth, and it was the Earth of the Lensman series?

When I was a teen and read those books, I just enjoyed them, but now I'm thinking that it would take a lot of trust to allow Kimball Kinnison to run around acting as judge, jury, and executioner. As readers of the books, we know that he was vetted as deeply as anyone could be by the Arisians, so he can be trusted with that kind of power; but it would be hard for the ordinary people in the world of the books to trust him that much.

Comment Re:What purpose does registration serve? (Score 1) 192


I didn't actually say that, but since you mention it, it's true. The Constitution does forbid it from using its power EXCEPT to the extent necessary to help regulate Interstate Commerce.

That's the way it works, man. I didn't invent the damned thing.

By the way: "Class G" airspace is COMPLETELY UNCONTROLLED by the FAA. Maybe you should read your own sources.

Comment Re:What purpose does registration serve? (Score 1) 192

You're claiming they have no jurisdiction- the FAA, Congress, and accepted constitutional law ALL DISAGREE WITH YOU.

No, they don't. "Accepted Constitutional Law" says that the Federal government has authority ONLY over the items specifically enumerated in the Constitution. One of those items is the Interstate Commerce Clause, which gives the Federal government to regulate some aspects of interstate commerce.

The Interstate Commerce Clause was the basis of authority for the Air Commerce Act of 1926, which was effectively the creation of the FAA. In fact it was a bureau of the Commerce Department. Look it up.

Regardless of attempted Federal expansion, the Constitution only gives the Federal government the power it gives it. No more, no less. Congress does not have authority to lawfully expand its own authority, nor the Executive Branch, nor the Judicial Branch.

So you decide: is the Constitution a valid document, or is it not? If it is, then the FAA can lawfully control only airspace that is regularly used in interstate commerce. That is the basis for ALL of its authority. No matter how many "regulations" it wants to pass.

If the Constitution is not valid, then screw it, it doesn't matter. The government could do whatever it wanted until it was overthrown... as it surely would be, and a new Constitution implemented.

Comment Re:I think this is fair. (Score 1) 222

Port addresses are not part of the ISP's business, either. That is an internal matter for the networks/routers at source and destination, not in between.

My ISP, for example, has absolutely no business knowing (or caring) whether I am doing SSH over port 22 or port 23456. It's just plain not their affair and should have absolutely nothing to do with how my packets are routed by ISPs.

Today's "common carriers" do in fact concern themselves with more than just the layer responsible for directing the connection from sender to receiver.

But they should not. That is the whole point being discussed here. It isn't essential for their services and it's private information.

Further, if they intentionally redirect my packets, in any way that wasn't essential for internet routing, they're interfering with a private communication, which is illegal for a common carrier to do.

Comment Re:I think this is fair. (Score 4, Informative) 222

The packet header is quite easy to see, and your analogy is like saying the Post office can't be a common carrier because they read the envelope to get the address, so the are already inspecting the mail.

Nonsense. All the information an ISP needs are in the link and internet layers. Any deeper information is none of their business. The source and destination IPs are in the internet layer, and are similar to the destination and return addresses on the snail-mail envelope.

Doing any deeper packet inspection is akin to steaming open the envelope to see whether the letter is actually intended for the addressee or her kids (transport layer, application layer, etc.), or the content of the actual message. That's absolutely none of the ISP's business as a common carrier.

There is a huge difference between reading an IP or TCP/UP header and trying to piece together a stream of packets in order to determine the content.

No. There is a huge difference between reading an IP header, and reading a TCP header. As a common carrier, an ISP has no legitimate reason to do the latter. No more than the post office has any business opening the envelope to see whether the message starts with "Dear John," or ends with "Love always".

Comment Re:I think this is fair. (Score 1) 222

I haven't looked at the actual case, but based on the summary, the judge must have issued a ruling overriding a request for dismissal of one or more counts that were predicated on the protections of the DMCA, and to do this, the judge would have to state his reasoning why.

How does that make GP wrong? If this judge does make a bad call on the dismissal, then indeed Cox could use that as grounds for appeal. Sure, that does mean the case must be tried first.

I suppose you may have meant GP was wrong about recusal or "instant appeal". It doesn't work that way. But the decision will certainly be an influential one in the following procedures.

Comment Re:What purpose does registration serve? (Score 1) 192

No, the deal is, if you fly a drone across a state line, it becomes subject to federal regulation. And not before.

Almost but not quite. "Navigable airspace" means commonly-traveled interstate air routes, and associated airspace, like around airports.

And that's reasonable.

But the vast majority of airspace, outside of those commonly traveled routes and altitudes, is completely outside FAA's jurisdiction. That's a basic principle of how our Constitution models Federal authority.

Comment Re:What purpose does registration serve? (Score 1) 192

Yes, I do. Do you? Specifically, Class G airspace - the "uncontrolled" airspace up to 1200 feet, except in the vicinity of an airport, where the ceiling is much lower? Because that's part of the national airspace system, and the rules identifying and controlling it are the responsibility of the FAA. The FAA reauthorization of 2012 grants them the charter of "integrating uav flight" into the national airspace, which includes Class G - therefore, they are well within their legal rights to regulate that space.

That isn't an answer. You're defining something in terms of that something... a completely circular argument which has no meaning. I asked you a question which you haven't answered.

If you need it made more clear, then look this up: what was the Congressional authority under which the 2012 reauthorization was made? Here's a big hint: it's called a "REauthorization"... not a grant of new authority.

Your description of areas around airports are irrelevant, because I mentioned them myself, earlier.

the CONGRESS has constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce

This is just asinine. Of course it's Congress' authority under which the law was made. FAA authority can only be assigned via Congressional authority. Again, this is not an argument. It's something I already mentioned myself.

So, you're saying that Class G airspace only exists as a navigable airspace in one state?

Of course not. Where did I state that? What I stated was that it's part of a system of INTERSTATE routes. Get a goddamned clue.

Once again - shouting "THE CONSTITUTION!" doesn't constitute (ha!) an argument. Congress has authority to regulate interstate commerce. Air travel is part of interstate commerce, and thus the use of the airspace used by air travel is regulated by the FAA, by order of Congress. The FAA regulates ALL airspace, not just the airspace above an airport, or routes between airports. Why? Because the stuff going on at 500 feet can easily affect the stuff going on at other altitudes, without a well-defined set of regulations in place to govern what responsible people will do in that space.

I didn't "shout" anything... you seem to be the one doing the shouting here. And an awful lot of hand-waving.

No, FAA does not regulate "all" airspace. This goes right back to my original statement. FAA regulates -- via its Congressionally-granted authority to regulate COMMERCIAL INTERSTATE AIR TRAVEL (that pesky "interstate commerce" clause you don't seem to understand) -- is in charge of "navigable airways". Which are defined as commonly-traveled INTERSTATE airways, and other airspace that is part of that system... like areas around airports.

That is a very far cry from "all" airspace. In fact, it's a system of particular routes and particular altititudes, and other areas (such as airports), which you can find clearly printed on aviation charts of the United States.

The FAA does NOT have jurisdiction over OTHER airspace... which in fact is the majority of the airspace.

Therefore it does not have jurisdiction over drones that do not cross into that airspace. For example, the FAA has absolutely NO legal authority over the air 250 feet above my property. That's MY airspace, by international law.

Comment Re:What purpose does registration serve? (Score 1) 192

In fact, the law in question that gives the FAA the authority to regulate drones is the "FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012," specifically, Title III, Subtitle B, "Unmanned Aircraft Systems," in which Congress specifically directs the FAA as follows:

Do you know what "the national airspace system" referred to there is?

Do you know what the Commerce clause in the Constitution is (which is the ONLY Constitutional authority FAA has)?

Are you asserting that Congress doesn't have any authority to make this law,

No, I'm saying Congress' authority to make this law is limited to "navigable airspace", which is the concept which governs interstate air transportation. The "interstate" part is what gives the FAA its authority.

rather than spouting off generalized inanities that demonstrate your lack of knowledge about aviation. If not, then perhaps you can take your claims that the FAA has "no lawful authority" over you, and shove them up your ass.

It's not a generalization, it's Constitutional law. Read about it some time.

Comment Re:What purpose does registration serve? (Score 0, Flamebait) 192

When idiots crash their drones into things then authorities will be able to hold the pilot responsible.

Will they?

Show me where in the Constitution, or in the Air Commerce Act, the FAA was given authority over all airspace in the U.S.

They don't have such authority. Any more than the EPA has legal authority over the birdbath in your backyard.

Unless you're flying your drone in "navigable airspace" (which is interstate airways and around the airports that serve them), FAA has no lawful authority over you.

Comment Re:What idiocy (Score 1) 312

I have stated as fact that the fear of individuals possibly carrying firearms and defending themselves is not a significant factor in the criminal mind.

Okay, I misunderstood your point. Duly noted.

Studies have also shown that criminals are deterred if they think their victims might be armed. See the decline in violent crime after concealed carry of firearms became more common:

Knives happen to have sharp edges, so trying to take one away is less of a winning proposition.

I'd really like some citations to go along with these claims you are making.

Hint, what you are saying here doesn't square with what my self-defense instructors have told me. The best single tool for self-defense is a firearm; a knife has a place in self-defense but it is definitely not the preferred tool.

We actively discourage vigilantism.

You keep phrasing things in weird ways, but if I'm not mistaken, you and I are in agreement on this point: society is currently telling people that they shouldn't do anything when violence occurs, just sit back and let the police handle it.

At which point you bring up a whole lot of inconsistent research that manage to conclude something with a 312.5% margin of error and with extremely poor experimental design, and from a biased source to boot.

Dunno where you get that margin of error. Professor Kleck's book about his research led to him being awarded the Hindelang Award by the American Society of Criminology. I guess they thought his research was okay.

Did you know global warming is bunk, too? Exxon-Mobil published a study. There is no pollution from coal at all.

Still waiting for you to offer any sort of citation to support your propositions. By the way, I hate coal.

You're a retard.

Huh. I think you are not worth my time and this will be my last comment to you.

Perhaps, however, you misunderstood my comment. If a guy with a gun goes into a school or whatever and starts shooting the place up, all the people in that school are his victims IMHO. The ones he shoots are the worst off, of course, but everyone else can be said to be the victims of assault at minimum.

You ascribed a particular motive to the people who don't attack a school shooter: "Nobody stands up to put a stop to it, because they might get shot a few seconds earlier."

So, did I misunderstand you again? Were you not saying that the people who failed to attack the shooter were motivated out of a willingness to watch others die rather than increase their own personal risk?

I explained the role of society in deterrence, and you claim victim-blaming. I specifically said the victim has NO POWER over the situation, and it's the fault of everyone else in the world.

It's possible for "victims" to take a more active role in their own self-defense, and I'm in favor of that. It's also possible for bystanders to take a more active role in the defense of others, and I'm in favor of that too.

I'm less interested in blaming the bystanders for not acting, than in changing society to make it more likely that bystanders will act.

You claim I'm blaming Sally for getting raped by complaining that Tim, Bob, George, Amanda, Mark, Joseph, and Bill all stood by and did nothing. Are Tim, Bob, George, Amanda, Mark, Joseph, and Bill the victim?

Depends on the circumstances. If they watch some brute assault Sally with his bare hands and they do nothing, they aren't any kind of victims, and IMHO they should do something. If, however, the rapist has a buddy who his pointing a gun at all of them to cow them into inaction, then they are victims as well. I would actually prefer that they do something, rather than standing around; obviously the worst victim is Sally in this horrific scenario.

I'll say it again: if some guy with a gun crashes into a school and starts walking around shooting people, everyone in the school is a victim of the guy. Some of them are victims of gunshot wounds, others are victims of assault and being terrorized. It is unreasonable to declare that the average untrained person is making a cold, calculated decision to watch others die rather than put himself at risk; more likely he is frozen, deer-in-the-headlights, having trouble processing the situation and unsure what to do.

You extended too far with your bullshit art. You got burned.

Or, you misunderstood my point and then were very quick to call me a "retard" and so on.

Well, have a nice life.

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten