Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Aussie freedoms are inferior (Score 1) 337

The gun thing is also important. I'm not a gun nut... but I believe I have a right to be dangerous in my own country and in my home. Not for hunting... not even for self defense... to be DANGEROUS. I feel that is an important check on anyone that would try to intimidate the people. If they understand that the people can and will turn on them with an instant militia of millions. That forces the elites to be careful.

That made me laugh. How's that working out for you so far? Maybe you can't see from inside, but from out here America looks like elite paradise. Your government is run by corporate donors, workers' rights are eroding, don't get me started on public health. Half of you can't be bothered getting off their arse to vote, so don't expect them to join you in your game of Fantasy Militia. Your guns and bluster are at best useless, at worst a cultural sickness, so don't you dare project your failures onto the rest of the world like they're the only answer to anything.

As an Australian, we've dealt with guns to the point where we saw mass shootings and decided, as a country, NO FUCKING WAY, and you have no right to judge us as inferior. You obviously don't even see your own hypocrisy in doing so. At least we all voted for it, you stupid prat. Stay in your country, we certainly don't need your perverse American breed of self-centred, everyone-for-himself "freedom" here.

Enjoy your guns and militia fantasies while your social fabric continues to rot, worn away by the hand-rubbing of your greedy corporations. American has clearly forgotten what Democracy, not to mention the Economy, is all about - that is, to serve the people, collectively. Instead, you serve corporations, religions and gun lobbies, to the point you can't even think for yourself and instead spout meaningless rhetoric straight from television about what it means to be "free".

So THANK YOU for deciding to stay in America.

Comment Australia here; you got nothing to complain about. (Score 1) 58

We in Australia have just passed legislation requiring ISPs to retain users' "metadata" for 2 years. So there.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-...

Kind of ironic, considering that we're well behind the rest of the world in just about everything else internet-related. Our country is going to shit under the current conservative government, and that's not hyperbole. See asylum seekers, mining companies, Murdoch penetration, climate change denial; name the doo-doo, we're deep in it.

Comment Re:Friendliness (Score 1) 367

which will entice any superintelligence to convert all matter on Earth (and then, the universe) to computronium. If the AI is not perfectly friendly, humans are unlikely to survive that conversion.

I believe there was a paper written on a similar topic, by a one W. Rhinoceros, about the dangers of the rise of human intelligence. He also believed his kind would not survive the conversion - if I recall correctly - to small, decorative cups.

Comment Re:This was always going to happen (Score 1) 288

reality is skewed by Corporations creating laws to benefit themselves. Thus proving that Government should not be involved in economics, since the moment it is, it is corrupted by its own involvement.

Wow that's a leap. Just because there is corruption is politics, your conclusion is government should not be involved in economics. That's clearly an argument made up to support a bias you clearly already have. No, the solution is pretty simple - take corporate money out of politics. It is bleeding obvious that since parties now need $millions to operate, they become beholden to the companies whose "donations" allow them to survive. The whole thing is dysfunctional and only getting more so.

Government must be involved in economics, as they can make decisions for the good of the *entire country*, regardless of who has the most money. That is how it should be. However that function has been corrupted beyond recognition, due to parties now being dependent on corporate money, like a drug addict needing bigger and bigger hits until something gives.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 401

Europe is more important than the life of a single human or indeed of whole generations, but small folk do not have the scope to understand this.

Interesting point of view, considering Europe is made up of lots of single human beings, and would not exist but for each generation of them. Are you really proposing that the set of standards to which a nation adheres is a completely separate issue to those its people wish for?

Comment Re:Why PHP Won (Score 1) 281

Hello world in PHP:

        Hello world!

No Bullshit Boilerplate (TM), no needing 5KLoC of code and configuration, no application server to babysit 24/7, no need for catalina+tomcat+jakarta+jre+struts+hibernate+Xmxwtfbbq16GB, just load one module and every single customer sharing the server can use it... No need to understand the CGI protocol, no need to understand the HTTP protocol, no need to understand HTML even.

So? You realise you've just perfectly described classic ASP, which was released in 1996, a year before PHP, which was officially released in 1997.

Apart from that, your "hello world" example is not a PHP code file, it's a plain text file. Describing a file with no php code as an example of php is being disingenuous.

Comment Re:Okay, why are you all being so tough on Yahoo? (Score 1) 176

their email sucks

Depends how you use it. Yahoo have one of the best systems for creating throwaway email addresses, I've been using them for years and have accumulated around 70 of them. Their UI gets more cumbersome and slow with each fab new design iteration, but I don't check email online, I use POP down to Thunderbird.

Except that the POP account is Gmail, as Gmail has the best spam detection, but for some reason an utterly useless alias system (some email forms don't even accept "+" signs). So my Yahoo account, with the great aliases, forwards to the Gmail account, which then comes down to Thunderbird on my laptop, while still letting me check emails on the go with the Gmail app.

You don't have to use the services the way they'd prefer you to. The only time I visit mail.yahoo.com.au is to add another email alias. Works great, I like it.

Comment Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 293

> what is under debate is the balance between natural climatic variation and human CO2 emission

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

"About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere."

Here again you can see that we are contributing more than what the natural Carbon Cycle can absorb, which is the problem. The issue is NOT how much CO2 humans produce vs how much nature produces. The issue is that our added emissions tip the scale and the Carbon Cycle cannot compensate any longer. I hope you can re-think your position to understand the distinction between this and what you are saying.

Comment Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 293

> My understanding is [...] As far as I can tell [...]

Kudos for being honest that those parts are just your opinion / your understand. So I skipped those bits, as I doubt you're qualified to reliably inform me on the topic.

> No one is denying the scientific effect of atmospheric CO2, or that the Earth is warming - what is under debate is the balance between natural climatic variation and human CO2 emission

So you concede the reality and importance of climate change, and that CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the major contributors, yet somehow want to debate "cause". This implies your only difficulty is with the idea that human activity has been the major contributor to CO2 in the atmosphere, right? Well, that's easily fixed, allow me to direct you to the simple answer:

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

TL;DR: Yes natural CO2 is emitted, but it also *naturally absorbed*. It is a cycle, called the "Carbon Cycle". The problem is this: *Human emissions create an IMBALANCE between what is emitted what is absorbed*. Get it now? It's not about "how much is sent UP by us vs nature", it's about how we send up an EXCESS that cannot be absorbed back into the cycle.

> what is under debate is the balance between natural climatic variation and human CO2 emission

As you can see, no; it is not under debate. Like most in your camp, it is only under debate in your own mind, probably because you have only heard the rhetoric from other sources and not really understood the issues at all. Someone probably said to you "this is crap because nature sends up FAR more CO2 than humans do!" and that's all you heard. But it's a false, deceptive, pathetic argument, meant to mislead in order to allow companies to keep polluting. As such, it is also an immoral argument and those pedalling it should feel ashamed for contributing to ignorance and quite possibly future misery.

Comment Re:Controversial because? (Score 1) 284

> Want better teachers? Increase pay and better teachers will enter the profession.

Funny how some people claim that, when it comes to CEOs, high salaries are necessary to attract the best talent, but refuse to apply the same rationale to other professions like nurses, teachers, etc. Oh yes, doctors' and lawyers' salaries must also be high enough to attract the best people, but teachers - no, no, their profession doesn't work that way for some reason.

Comment Re:Try again... 4? (Score 1) 226

> I'd say it's pretty fucking obvious why users think music is free. The industry is presenting it that way.

Firstly, no, people don't think music is free, unless you're standing next to a busker or at a venue playing what they paid for to play. Everyone knows commercial music is commercial.

Secondly, by your reasoning, giving people samples of something makes everyone believe all the rest of that thing is also free.

Remember Kazaa back in 2001? Nobody thought they had a right to free music until Kazaa got plastered all over the news and everyone discovered they could be naughty kids and get stuff for free. The concept has stuck ever since - mainly because it's still easy to do with any torrent program. People love getting free stuff if they can, no matter what it is, that's just human nature. As long as it's easy.

If anything, companies giving away free music is a *response* to the how torrenting has presented music to people as free.

Comment Re:A contrary opinion (Score 1) 359

> I have much more meaningful discussions on G+ than I do FB, partly because the number of followers on G+ is less, so less crap.

It sounds like those conversations are with people you don't know. Which is odd, as FB an G+ are centred around networks of people who know each other. Hence the G+ invite-only thing. If you want to have meaningful conversations with people you *don't* know, the Internet has been providing that since it started (and BBSs before that). You already have it here on /. There's also Reddit. Heck, there are things called "forums" all over the place, which served as social networks decades before "social networks" came along.

I don't think G+ provides anything new in the way of meaningful discussions with strangers who share interests. The internet's had that covered in thousands of ways for a long time.

Don't sweat it -- it's only ones and zeros. -- P. Skelly

Working...