Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Living Wage is mandated for, and desired by idi (Score 1) 26 26

There are a LOT of people like this (including, perhaps you've heard of them, TEENAGERS).

Yeah! Lets put drivers half way through their graduated licensing programs on the streets, driving parts of town they don't know, with random strangers as passengers. Great idea.

I wonder what commercial passenger insurance costs for a teenager who hasn't even got their full license yet. Probably more than they'll ever make driving for uber.

Comment: Re:Holy Mountain (Score 1) 229 229

If a movie violates canon,

If the subject of the movie has 'canon' to violate, then the subject of the movie has a problem, not the movie.

I do not mean to offend, but 'canon' and the people who take it seriously... they are the ones with the problem. A story is told for its audience, not for the sake of the story. Tailoring the tale to the medium and the audience is as old as the oral tradition of telling stories.

When I sit around telling campfire stories, tailoring the details and events to localize them, modernize them, and make them more accessible and more engaging... your the guy looking them up in the big book of canon shrilly bleating that such and such didn't happen just-so; and so-and-so went here first and then there.... and the whole thing was in New York not Seattle... trust me the problem is NOT with the story i told.

Comment: Re:Blaming their tools (Score 1) 90 90

That would be because the PS3 and PS4 use sony's proprietary graphics API that looks nothing like OpenGL.

Check the thread context.

I never said PS3/PS4 use OGL. I was countering the argument that "it must because be the developers only know directX and are now blaming their tools".

The point stands that the problem is in fact specific to OSX and OpenGL and is NOT the fault of the developers only being competent with DirectX.

Comment: Re:Exactly what I was thinking (Score 1) 90 90

Yet it appears to run ok on the Playstation 3 and 4. So... maybe its something to do with OSX specifically rather than them hiring coders who don't know OpenGL.

I figure the statement from the engineering team got run through too many marketing and legal drones and the message that ultimately got released to the public is just word salad.

Comment: Re:Palemoon (Score 1) 162 162

I looked at palemoon hard. Its pretty much just one guy is it not. I think its great what he's doing; but I'd prefer to see Firefox fixed properly rather than rely on Moonchild to maintain a browser for me -- something that is going to get increasingly harder as Mozilla diverges further and further from his fork.

Comment: Re:No (Score 3, Interesting) 483 483

. So I run an open guest wifi which is on a different subnet and has its internet rate limited.

Even my guest network is password protected. Its for my guests not for everybody. If I wanted it for everybody, there wouldn't be a password on it, and people wouldn't need a windows feature to shared with their contacts.

Many of my neighbors also have guest networks... none of them are wide open.

This feature is probably the worst/dumbest thing I've seen in Windows 10 so far. Actually no... the inability to disable bing searching the web when you use the search in the start menu is the dumbest hting I've seen in windows 10... if that shit isn't fixed by release nobody should upgrade. NOBODY.

(And the sad thing is I actually over all like windows 10... but its just stuffed with bloat I don't want. At least most of it I can shut off... live tiles, cortana, using microsoft accounts, etc... but its becoming more and more work to set the settings up right.

I'm looking forward to a windows 10 de-crapifier powertool shortly after release... hell I'm tempted to write one.

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 831 831

The US Government isn't brave or cowardly.

Some of there actions are brave. Others cowardly.

They're fighting a war.

No. They really aren't fighting a war.

They are using the military as an international extrajudicial hit squad.

Call it a "war" to rationalize it is like rolling tanks down main street to wage war on shoplifters. After all, we can't simply send the police... they might get injured, how can we take that risk? We should use every advantage we have, all the time... right?)

The "brave" alternative is sending troops in to get killed. That's not a solution, then you just get more people killed.

There are a lot of options between "drone strike at wedding" and "boots on the ground invasion"; lets not frame the question as a binary choice.

And if you don't like policy, you don't frame it in terms of how effective we are at fighting

How we engage is as important as policy. We could use ICBMs, with nuclear warheads too, without loss of American life. That doesn't make it a sensible choice.

Drone strikes at weddings aren't sensible either.

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 831 831

The only intel that is usually received is that some high value target was going to be there.

That's not sufficient intel for a super power to drop a bomb on someone then; especially someone who really poses no real tangible threat.

Mistakes are made and perhaps too often.

Made too often, and admitted too rarely. Mistakes are usually rationalized. In this very thread we have an appeal to Sun Tzu and an argument that we must attack them where they are weak and that its entirely justified to bomb civilian weddings... somehow.

because their physical bravery is put to the use of evil.

Few conflicts should be framed in terms of 'good' and 'evil'. They have many very legitimate grievances; and they have committed many terrible actions. Same applies to us.

In any case framing them as 'evil' in a thread about us drone striking weddings comes across as pretty oblivious.

You can't call a drone pilot a physical coward in the same way.

I don't. I call the US government cowardly. The people setting the policy and calling the shots. Not the people literally taking them. I don't think drone pilots are cowards, or unnecessary.

But I do think strikes against civilian targets in foreign countries without a declaration of war ... well...
I'm sure you can imagine what we'd call drone strikes against American soldiers attending weddings perpetrated by North Korea...

Comment: Re:$450 Million (Score 4, Funny) 97 97

"Ok, and with annual sales revenue of 180 Billion (with a B) or thereabouts, $450 Million amounts to the change you'd find under the couch cushions."

That is 1/4% If you routinely find 1/4% of your annual household revenue in your couch not doing very well.

Even for a household making a modest 30,000$/year; that would be like finding $75 in the couch. Hell, I make several times that per year, and I'd still consider finding $75 in the couch a pretty good day.


According that Apple only had net revenue of $42.1 billion. So that's like our 30k household finding $320 in the couch. A rather nice day I'm sure.

And of that Apple only profited 8.5 more like the equivalent of finding $1588 in the couch. Come now, that's not couch money anymore... that's getting into hidden mattress money!!

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 831 831

If it's so easy why don't you just run right over there and arrest them?.

Don't be an asshat. Its not easy to capture or arrest the people shoplifting where I work. I have no illusions that it would be easy to capture terrorists in a foreign country.

But we don't need to bomb them at weddings just because capturing/killing them other ways would be harder. They aren't THAT much of a threat that we need to do that. Just as we don't shoot shoplifters in the back when they run when we try to arrest or capture them. It's not necessary; they simply aren't that dangerous.

Likewise terrorists 7000 miles away pose no real credible threat to us; we can afford to wait. There is no impending doom to the United States.

Comment: Re:Drone It (Score 1) 831 831

So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak.

The relative strength of a super power to a terrorist network is such that that the terrorist targets are always weak. ALWAYS.

A terrorist network poses no existential threat to the United States whatsoever. At best they pose a limited threat to individual civilians roughly on the same scale as bathtub related accidents.

In other words, we aren't fighting WW2 here, we can well afford to take the high moral road, and attack harder targets.

The art of using troops is this:
When ten to the enemy's one, surround him;
When five times his strength, attack him;
If double his strength, divide him;
If equally matched you may engage him;
If weaker numerically, be capable of withdrawing;
And if in all respects unequal, be capable of eluding him, .for a small force is but booty for one more powerful.


Except we're already beyond the ten to the enemy's one. More like 1000 to the enemy's one. So we can simply surround and arrest them like criminals. We certainly don't need to be bombing weddings like cowards.

Bombing weddings is what *terrorists do*... because they don't have a massive force advantage. They can only inflict damage against against us in the most indirect ways; in small numbers; against extremely soft targets. THEY are the ones looking to elude their enemy (us) and withdraw.

There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all Hell. -- William Tecumseh Sherman

Yes. War is hell. Bombing weddings is not war; although its also pretty hellish.

I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country. -- Patton

So how many weddings do we need to bomb before we've won? Or are we actually just creating more enemies to fight faster than we're killing them?

It is not cowardly to use one's military advantages.

It's not necessarily cowardly. But it absolutely can be. In this case: it is.

If I have a gun that shoots a mile and yours only shoots a half a mile, why should I close to a half a mile, I should stay out of your range and kill you when you are easy prey and can't shoot back.

Ok. Now, if you have a gun that shoots a mile, and I'm not carrying a gun at all, because I'm just a regular joe at a wedding? What do you think you gain by shooting at me? I'm not even your target.

Now, that said, lets talk about your target. The guy with a gun that only shoots half a mile. That is 7000 miles from your border. Do you really need to shoot him at a wedding? Or can you wait until he's at least close enough that maybe he might eventually be in range?

Its not like he's a mile away and closing on you. If you don't shoot him now, he's gonna get you. Because that's not what's happening. He's a 7000 miles away, at a wedding, and if you don't shoot him now, he's gonna be 7000 miles away tomorrow too. So you can bide your time and hit him some other time. He's not even remotely even close to being anywhere near able to strike the US... so what's the panic rush?

Murphy's Law, that brash proletarian restatement of Godel's Theorem. -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"