Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Pope Francis - fuck your mother (Score 1) 893

by causality (#48842231) Attached to: Pope Francis: There Are Limits To Freedom of Expression

I'm all for the Pope telling his followers how to be better people, and not say unnecessary things that are patently offensive to other people, like "Fuck the Pope". That's kind of the point of religion, now, isn't it?

Well, he could have said it better. If I were the Pope (yeah, like that's ever going to happen!) I would have said something like this:

"Don't be rude to others. Looking for ways to intentionally offend, just for the sake of offense, is not the way of Christ. As Christians we are called to be ambassadors for Christ. Ambassadors do not look for ways to offends those to whom they are sent. At the same time, the Lord also commanded us to turn the other cheek. Even more, He told us that we must pray for those who persecute us. If we are commanded to pray for our persecutors, surely we can turn the other cheek and pray for those who make petty insults of our cherished beliefs!"

*Sigh* Apparently, even the Pope could stand to have a few lessons on how to be a good Christian.

If only I had mod points, I'd mod you up, sir or madam. At least you understand what this belief is supposed to advocate, whether or not you personally practice it.

Comment: Re:And locks too! (Score 1) 562

by causality (#48842173) Attached to: Obama: Gov't Shouldn't Be Hampered By Encrypted Communications

I for one am tired of the government from being slowed by locks whenever they need to find a terrorist suspect, I think the government needs a master key that can open any lock, and everyone combination lock needs to have a master unlock code to unlock it.

Since the master keys would only be available to a few thousand (ok, maybe a few hundred thousand) law enforcement personnel, I fail to see how the "bad guys" would ever get access to them. The government has our best interests at heart, and they carefully screen employees to ensure that none of them are the "bad guys".

I appreciate your sarcasm.

Comment: Re:Statism for the WIN (Score 1) 562

by causality (#48841725) Attached to: Obama: Gov't Shouldn't Be Hampered By Encrypted Communications

Interesting point. That said, I am interested in any takers and will honestly address any argment people want to make.

Of course you are quite correct, all I am getting is the odd insult and pathetic verbal jab, no one has even tried to support their failed system of tyranny with logic.

Telling, isn't it? Afraid they are, of facing the truth.

The political elite class that had anything to do with making those decisions likely doesn't actively participate in this site. The most you're likely to find here are people in denial who are clinging to the idea that by voting within the two-party system, they are somehow exercising anything resembling real choice. That doesn't remotely fit your description of what you're looking for.

I agree that the personal insults are pathetic. A lot of people choose things which are (or should be) beneath them.

Comment: Re:Hope and change (Score 4, Insightful) 562

by causality (#48841651) Attached to: Obama: Gov't Shouldn't Be Hampered By Encrypted Communications

Fake as all the others.

The man acted like a redneck idiot. He used deliberately common-folk language, avoided long words. Soundbite quotes wherever possible. But his educational record is very good, and he even graduated Harvard business. He knew that a popular, everyman president would play well, and an intellectual would be regarded as 'elitist' - so he put on the act he knew would give the best advantage in his career.

Yes, Heaven forbid the man occupying the highest office of the land and charged with making important decisions be known as an intellectual. I mean, this IS America...

Comment: Re:Communication has never been secure (Score 1) 562

by causality (#48841625) Attached to: Obama: Gov't Shouldn't Be Hampered By Encrypted Communications

Snail mail and land line phones were never secure, all it took was a search warrant/court order (really easy to get) and the police had it. Email is no different. All the ranting about the NSA and government intrusion just diverts from the fact that; 1) if you don't want anyone to hear what you say, don't say it. 2) if you don't want anyone to read what you write, don't write it down. The USA founding fathers lived with the knowledge that they would be held accountable for what they said and wrote, and today it's no different.

"Being held accountable" is supposed to mean something along the lines of "people might decide they don't like you, or at least don't agree with you". It's not supposed to mean things like "you mysteriously end up on the no-fly list", or "the IRS gives you lots of special attention", or any other methods by which your government -- that's nominally supposed to be serving you -- is going to find a way to screw with your life.

Comment: Re:I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free... (Score 2) 562

by causality (#48841257) Attached to: Obama: Gov't Shouldn't Be Hampered By Encrypted Communications

I dont like the scumbags that shoot up chocolate shops and newspaper offices or crash airplanes into buildings or blow up nightclubs but I would rather see 1000 terrorists go free than to see a single innocent person have their privacy, security, civil liberties or constitutional rights violated.

This is more generally known as refusing to be a coward.

Comment: Re:Statism for the WIN (Score 2) 562

by causality (#48841223) Attached to: Obama: Gov't Shouldn't Be Hampered By Encrypted Communications

I will debate any statist on any argument whatsoever, and I will destroy them (the argument that is!), and what is more, I will do so not only with real actual logic but as and when warranted with facts and references. And what is more I will be polite and will not resort to name calling or personal attacks at all, but will of course expect that same consideration in return. And I will win the argument, always, and completely. There is no argument for big government statism that can defeat me - because I am right and you are wrong.

Statists generally prefer one-to-many broadcast methods like the evening news to spread their (largely emotional, fear-based) propaganda. This way they know there will be no equal airtime given to someone who logically questions their proposals and looks at them with a critical view. They are too welcome in too many other, much more convenient forums to actually take up your challenge on anything like a level playing field.

Although, a favorite trick of some flavors of statist is to invite dissenters to call into the show. The host will mute the caller, talk over them, refuse to answer inconvenient questions, and usually entirely take over the asking of questions, respond to complex and nuanced issues by badgering the caller with a series of yes/no questions designed to lead to a predetermined conclusion (an abuse of the Socratic method), changing the subject ("We had no justification to be in Iraq." "Saddam was a dictator! Do you support dictators?!"), and use other propaganda techniques designed to appear legitimate. This will convince the naive that any debate is happening, and that no one can successfully get the host to admit fault because the host is always right.

In summary, you're not going to get an honest debate because these people are afraid of honest debate and go to great lengths to avoid it. With a mere five corporations controlling every major newspaper, broadcast TV news service, radio news service, cable news service, and online news outlets, there simply isn't enough diversity to allow for anything in the mainstream other than an echo chamber. It comes in two flavors: "left" and "right", which are two slightly different methods of reaching the same conclusion that the solution to our problems is to concentrate more wealth and power into fewer hands.

Comment: Re:Precedence? (Score 5, Insightful) 562

by causality (#48841123) Attached to: Obama: Gov't Shouldn't Be Hampered By Encrypted Communications

Doesn't the precedence of the clipper chip fiasco in the 90s already dictate this can't be done? Or am I misunderstanding?

They try again and again to implement the same bad ideas, knowing that defeats don't matter, understanding that they only need to score a single victory and their maladaptive proposals will be forever enshrined in law, never to be repealed. These are people who play chess and as such they learned to take a long view of things, realizing that most Americans have incredibly short memories and are only considering the here and now.

Comment: Re: what about spectrums rights? (Score 1) 104

by causality (#48812283) Attached to: Where Cellular Networks Don't Exist, People Are Building Their Own

I am all for legalizing cannabis. I have no interest in legalising heroine, crack, meth, PCP, etc.

I'd rather abusers spend time in jail than around me and mine.

We have to draw a line somewhere, and crossing that line is how the black market makes money. Taking away that line altogether is akin to anarchy.

Stealing it without paying for it would still be a crime. Fraud would still be a crime. It wouldn't be anarchy, no not nearly.

Comment: Re:the whole things an editor if you're brave enou (Score 2, Insightful) 114

by causality (#48765995) Attached to: Text Editor Created In Minecraft

The really important question is whether or not at the Planck scale one finds that we are all one really, really big version of Minecraft, being played by beings that look strangely like turtles. All the way down.

Another really important question is just how much of the world's creative potential is devoted to creating meta-inventions on top of rulesets intended for something else entirely rather than, say, bringing about world peace, curing cancer, feeding the hungry, or just plain moving out of your mom's basement. Not that I am entirely without sin in this regard myself, but it is a sad commentary on the state of the world (virtual or not) that we appear to live in when solving vast and pointless artificial problems in a virtual reality is more appealing than tackling the real and serious problems that surround us.


The problem with things like feeding the hungry is all of the political opposition you would run into. Since the Industrial Revolution of the late 1800s we've had the capability of feeding, clothing, sheltering, and educating the entire world's population several times over. What we don't have is the political will to do it. Too many ruling elite would have to give up power for it to actually happen. That's the real obstacle.

Most armed conflict is also to the benefit of this ruling elite, who use such phrases as "ordo ab chao" (order out of chaos) to describe their interest in it. Wars are very profitable if you're a well-positioned sociopath, and playing two sides against each other is a great way to increase your power over each. It's the same military-industrial-complex that Eisenhower tried to warn us about, not that we listened.

The financial incentive related to cancer is that sick people are much more profitable than healthy people. A cheap, easy, one-time cancer cure (if there were such a thing) would absolutely devastate the multibillion dollar "cancer industry". The companies profiting from that would be just as eager to embrace such a cure as the RIAA/MPAA middlemen have been eager to adapt to an Information Age where the cost of copying and distributing a work is nearly zero.

Getting out of Mom's basement was easier in the past when good jobs that led to good careers with good pensions were available to anyone willing to work hard, which was when the USA valued and protected its manufacturing base, recognizing it as the real wealth and independence from foreign nations that it was. Additionally, it's not generally young women who are staying at home with Mama. They're showing the drive and ingenuity that young men used to also have. I'd recommend reading Boys Adrift by Dr. Leonard Sax for an in-depth explanation as to why this is happening, from grade schools that try to force boys into developmentally inappropriate roles (and then brand them ADHD when it fails), to chemicals in the food supply that have a feminizing effect on animals and humans, to reduced testosterone levels and sperm counts, etc.

These are all problems that we could do a much better job of addressing, with some of them being completely solvable. But for that to really get started, we'd first have to stop allowing psychotic sociopaths to have power and make all of the important decisions. It wouldn't hurt to also have a mass media that didn't use so many recognizable propaganda techniques, and/or a population trained in logic, reasoning, and introspection, considering these skills as basic as literacy. Until then, every starving person on the planet is basically a monument to how psychotic and fucked-up this civilization has really become.

Comment: Re:Not so sure about this... (Score 1) 252

by causality (#48756037) Attached to: The Missing Piece of the Smart Home Revolution: The Operating System

If users cant reasonably secure their own services they shouldn't be running them! All the power and none of the responsibility is a recipe for disaster every time.

That's exactly how I feel, which is why I don't take on such a project without first learning how it works, how to properly administer it, how to secure it, what the threat models are, etc. I would go so far as to say this is simply called being an adult person. The users who refuse to learn (as I've mentioned before) remind me of the child who really wants a kitten because they're cute, but doesn't want to be bothered changing its litter box and feeding it. This is where decent parents instill the notion of personal responsibility, the idea that if you truly want something you must also accept the costs that come with it.

Most of what is commonly called "stupidity" or "cluelessness" is really just childishness. It's why you see such annoyed protests from average users instead of genuine curiosity and fascination when you dare suggest they should, at the very least, have learned the basics. This is a self-reinforcing mentality that does not acknowledge and overcome its own faults. It will not self-correct because that would contradict its coveted instant gratification. Instead, it plays blame games.

This kind of thing being so widespread is also why we have the kind of government that we do today.

Comment: Re:Why the big Pipes doesn't want Net Neutrality (Score 2) 81

by causality (#48725045) Attached to: FCC Says It Will Vote On Net Neutrality In February

They want to charge more! Remember when they wanted to charge for every byte? One big pipe is one cost, a hundred little pipes are individual billings. Imagine them charging for access to every site. If access to a site is too slow, you won't use it. If you want it bad enough you will pay. Sounds like Cable and Satellite TV. They control the Pipe, they control your access. And without their PIpe, how will we get access to the Internet?

What would go wrong with classifying them as common carriers? Don't want to be held liable for every illegal use of your network? Then don't screw with the traffic in any way. What downside would there be to treating ISPs this way?

Comment: Re: This is MY suggestion on how to start to fix (Score 1) 149

by causality (#48681541) Attached to: 13,000 Passwords, Usernames Leaked For Major Commerce, Porn Sites

Instead of passing harsher laws, maybe we should require that you (and people like you) should be only allowed to use the internet under the supervision of a caretaker.

Of course, if you seriously advocate that people take responsibility for their networks, their equipment, and their decisions and realize the part they play in enabling the problems they complain about, you'll be accused of "blaming the victim".

Still, unlike the harsher laws that vary by jurisdiction (of which some have no extradition treaties), this actually stands a chance of working. On a hostile network like the Internet, nothing other than hardening the targets is going to actually improve security. It would also be nice for the rest of us not to have to contend with botnets and other problems made possible entirely by the clueless who want all the benefits of a general-purpose global network but don't want to put forth the effort to learn how it works and how to use it responsibly.

They strongly resemble the child who wants a pet cat but doesn't want to feed it and change its litter box because that part isn't fun.