Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal: Sorry I haven't written...

Journal by mcgrew

I have two new stories nearly finished, but I've decided to see if I can sell first publication rights to a magazine. If everyone rejects them, I'll post them then. If one is accepted, it will likely be quite a while before I can post.

Comment: Re:You got it all backwards ... (Score 1) 293

RMS himself has said that he would only be okay with getting rid of copyright (and hence the basis on which GPL and its copyleft protection stands), if copyleft itself is written into law - i.e. if redistributing binaries without access to the code becomes illegal.

Comment: Re:"Full responsibilty?" (Score 1) 331

It's not a war when the other government doesn't mind you being there.

Really? So Vietnam war wasn't a war, and neither was the Soviet war in Afghanistan?

I have a very simple definition of war. If you have a "legitimate military operation" with "legitimate military objectives", then guess what, it's a war.

Comment: I predict (Score -1, Offtopic) 36

This telescope will be the first to detect unmistakable the fingerprints of Italian microtoads on our galaxy. At this very moment, Italian microtoads and their toad-zombies are writing Slashdort articles and determining our fate at the highest leverls of the world's secret government, using Floride and chemgrails as their weapons of mass distruction.

Comment: Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score 0) 605

by goose-incarnated (#49536021) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

You pay for schools because everyone in society benefits from having schools. A society of poorly-educated people is not successful and won't last for long. You don't pay for schools in case you need to send your kid there. The world is bigger than you, and you really should brush up on your logic, as the only way your crippled arguments make sense is if they are viewed through the prism of a toddler's reasoning skills.

Ah yes, the old standby of the religious right - insults! In light of your cogent arguments that anyone concerned about forcefully compelled medical procedures, a decision that has never turned out well in the history of mankind, I must indeed concede the point that this time forcefully compelled medical procedures could very well turn out okay because obviously anyone other than a toddler can see it. It's so obvious... we'd just need to break a few laws first, of course.

Comment: Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score 1) 605

by goose-incarnated (#49535185) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

Okay. Can I have a refund on my taxes which paid for the public school that I can no longer use? See how that works?

That sounds fair as long as you also pay a large excess tax that covers the host of setting up quarantine zones, emergency medical care and lifelong disability benefits

Why should I? Other people aren't billed in advance for engaging in expensive-to-treat behaviour, like starting wars.

(I'm not really an anti-vaxxer, I vaccinate and encourage vaccination and, for my own kid(s), I am prepared to go to court to force the other parent to vaccinate my kid(s). I'm just the devils advocate here)

I guess like many on this site I'm not a huge fan of governments forcing people to do things against their will, but there are cases where it's clearly the best path forward, like obeying speed limits, paying taxes .... and being vaccinated.

There's a big difference between speeding, paying taxes and being compelled against your will to bodily penetration. There's a whole slew of laws that are specifically on the books just for those who want to refuse medical intervention of any sort - 'My body, My right."

Maybe the only solution is to physically separate the vaccinated from the unvaccinated AND refuse taxes from those you do not provide services to... i.e. offer a rebate. It's totally unethical to accept payment for something (access to school) and then refuse to provide the something. Much better ethically to simply give them back their money.

Comment: Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score 1) 605

by goose-incarnated (#49534419) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

Fine. Pay for a private school which accepts unvaccinated children or home school them.

Okay. Can I have a refund on my taxes which paid for the public school that I can no longer use? See how that works?

The problem, as I see it, is that the "my body, my right" ideology is clashing with the "your rights end where my nose begins" ideology which is turning into a real problem for those people who have enshrined both ideologies in their heads as gospel. One right trumps the other and different people have different ideas about which right trumps the other one.

For example (using my question above), many people would respond that taxes are not opt-out and if you choose not to use a school it's YOUR choice and you do not deserve a rebate. Other people would respond that you should not have to pay twice to educate one child - once to a public school that your child does not attend and again to a private school that they do attend.

TLDR - the sides are not anti-vaxxer vs vaxxer, it's "get tax rebate for not using school" vs "pay twice for schooling".

Comment: Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score 1) 605

by shutdown -p now (#49533899) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

Just as we can compel you to pay your income tax by force if needed, so we can compel you to get yourself vaccinated. You can protest as much as you want, and you're welcome to "fight us to the death", but judging by the fact that you're still alive, it seems that you have diligently filed your tax returns so far, so I'm going to file it as "just talk".

Comment: Re:Seems to be OK all around then (Score 1) 605

by shutdown -p now (#49533881) Attached to: Bill To Require Vaccination of Children Advances In California

You don't have a right to not catch diseases from infected people.

In my state, knowingly spreading disease (e.g. by going to the crowds) if you know that you're infected is against the law.

People do have a right to not submit themselves to injections they don't agree with.

No-one has an absolute right to anything. All rights are ultimately balanced against the good of society. That's why free speech does not preclude libel & slander laws, for example, and why RKBA doesn't mean that you have a right to own a cruise missile.

In this particular case, your right to control your body is overridden by the extreme degree of common good that results from mandatory vaccinations, combined with a very low degree of personal invasion that such a vaccination actually entails.

GNU is Not Unix

GCC 5.1 Released 77

Posted by samzenpus
from the brand-new dept.
kthreadd writes: Version 5.1 of GCC, the primary free software compiler for GNU and other operating systems, has been released. Version 5 includes many changes from the 4.x series. Starting with this release the default compiler mode for C is gnu11 instead of the older gnu89. New features include new compiler warnings, support for Cilk Plus. There is a new attribute no_reorder which prevents reordering of selected symbols against other such symbols or inline assembler, enabling link-time optimization of the Linux kernel without having to use -fno-toplevel-reorder. Two new preprocessor directives have also been added, __has_include and __has_include_next, to test the availability of headers. Also, there's a new C++ ABI due to changes to libstdc++. The old ABI is however still supported and can be enabled using a macro. Other changes include full support for C++14. Also the Fortran frontend has received some improvements and users will now be able to have colorized diagnostics, and the Go frontend has been updated to the Go 1.4.2 release.

Comment: Re:Wonderful. (Score 1) 252

by goose-incarnated (#49529725) Attached to: Twitter Rolls Out New Anti-Abuse Tools

The IRC logs are verifiable. They are plain text and were captured and published by two independent sources on opposite sides of the argument

So, two blokes on the internet who agree is "verified", while one bloke is not? I'm afraid I don't really see a difference in the verification of the two claims - they're both as unverified as you can get.

They match perfectly, neither side is disputing their authenticity.

And ZQ is not disputing being a rapist and domestic abuser. Doesn't mean she is, just like it doesn't mean those things are any more or less "verified" than screendumps. After all, from what I can tell, the subject of those screendumps aren't disputing the authenticity either.

Comment: Re:What a bizarre statement (Score 1) 252

by goose-incarnated (#49527009) Attached to: Twitter Rolls Out New Anti-Abuse Tools

To give an example, there are a number of women working in the games space who are targeted every time they express any sort of view.

To my knowledge, Zoe Quinn only shuts down charities. Her own patreon still gets money from dewey-eyed naivetes. Her "game" still holds the record for lowest score ever received for a game on metacritic.

Comment: Re:Wonderful. (Score 1) 252

by goose-incarnated (#49526925) Attached to: Twitter Rolls Out New Anti-Abuse Tools

This is what I mean. You have a bunch of shitty images that are totally unverifiable. On the other hand we have the IRC logs that GamerGate themselves released

Wait, what? What makes your binary files more verifiable than his binary files? Do you have a LEO-enforced and court-verified trail of evidence that he does not? Your evidence does not automatically trump his.

...though his invention worked superbly -- his theory was a crock of sewage from beginning to end. -- Vernor Vinge, "The Peace War"

Working...