Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Early fragmentation (Score 1) 372

by LWATCDR (#48904707) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is Pascal Underrated?

You do realize that TurboPascal was insanely popular on both the PC and CP/M?
The reasons where simple.
1. Cheap
2. Turbo Editor Toolbox.
3. Turbo Database Toolbox.
4. Turbo Telcom Toolbox
5. Turbo Graphics Toolbox

I sold like hotcakes well in the the start of the Windows era and Borland even had an Object Windows Library OWL before MFC took over that market.

Comment: Re: That's a nice democracy you have there... (Score 1) 142

Which is a form of democracy...

In theory? Sure. In practice? Not so much. Oligarchy link is already provided on a comment very near to this one, but here 'tis again. Direct democracy or GTFO. For anyone who wants to cry "mob rule", quick quiz before anyone should give a shit what you think: 1) how many times in history has the electoral college disagreed with the popular vote? 2) what were the last two times that happened? The results should shut you the hell up, if you find the correct answers.

In countries where the people get to vote on bills, there may be democracy. I don't know, I don't live in one of those. In countries where more than two choices working for one master are presented, there may be democracy. I don't know, I don't live in one of those either. Here in the USA, we have two different colors of wolf arguing over one sheep.

Comment: Re:America is HUGE (Score 1) 128

by drinkypoo (#48904519) Attached to: Verizon, Cable Lobby Oppose Spec-Bump For Broadband Definition

Sometimes it's hilarious listening to those demanding changes in Federal, national standards in the US, who've clearly never travelled outside the coasts and/or packed, urban dorm living..

Here's the problem with that argument: even in cities where population is, most Americans still have crappy internet by modern standards. That's why you don't get to apply the "America is huge" argument to speeds, only to coverage. It's not surprising that many people who live in the sticks can't get cable or DSL, that happens because America is huge and our population is actually relatively distributed. But it is surprising that so many people who live in densely-packed regions still can't get even 25 Mbps, let alone the vastly higher speeds now available for a reasonable price in many nations which did not invent the internet.

Comment: Re:life in the U.S. (Score 1) 128

by drinkypoo (#48904439) Attached to: Verizon, Cable Lobby Oppose Spec-Bump For Broadband Definition

Competition and/or expanding access would go alot further to bettering the internet than increasing the broadband definition.

Yes, but the FCC can't really do that even if they want to, not by themselves. Raising the definition of 'broadband' (heh heh) is something they can do, hilariously enough.

The fastest upload speed I can get is 768k so I guess by the FCC's definition I'm not
on broadband. Even this is not a huge problem. The only reason I wish I could do faster uploads is so that I can do online backups
but that's probably a niche market.

I don't think it is. Think about all the Android phone users who have backup turned on, but only on Wi-Fi. They're out shooting videos and taking pictures on their phones, and then these files are getting the cloud backup treatment. I think people are going to get used to this sort of thing in general if they get a chance.

Comment: Re: life in the U.S. (Score 1) 128

by drinkypoo (#48904333) Attached to: Verizon, Cable Lobby Oppose Spec-Bump For Broadband Definition

Even with that price tag though, they end their line at the corner he's on, there is no service for us.

I'm in that same boat. Within a bowshot or so, there's both cable and DSL. Where I am, I can get access to a WISP which [sometimes] gives me 6 Mbps for $60/mo, recently revised-without-notice from 5 Mbps for $50. As lousy as it is, DSL would be a better deal for me if it worked, but this is some heinously old and multiply-spliced copper where it wouldn't work well anyway.

Comment: Re:Who are you? I'm bat- er, ANON! (Score 1) 308

If you can't see the problem with using children--even if the images are non-explicit--for sexual gratification then you are the one that is ignorant.

Oh no, I absolutely do see the problem. There are real kids really getting hurt as a result of the demand for child pornography. There's really no valid question about that. But we also need to draw a clear line between pedophilia and child abuse, because the two are not the same thing.

Jacking off to pictures of kids clothed on a playground is harmful to those kids who are just trying to exist in the world and not be a sex object.

The work on the subject is fairly well divided on whether that sort of activity provides relief or just entrainment. So it's unclear, in fact, whether it is or is not harmful. If the children are unaware that someone is thinking of them sexually because that someone is not interacting with them, then they are not being directly harmed.

It's clear that something has backfired in the brains of people who sexualize children. They need help. Currently the thinking is to destroy them. The general attitude towards pedophiles prevents them from seeking help. I've seen what happens when someone gets discovered as a pedophile with images of children on their computer, etc etc. People who have known them for years and would have spoken up for them the day before are saying anything to preserve their own accountability while giving not one single fuck as to what happened to that person to make them that way.

Feel free to disregard my argument because i am Anonymous, though.

I don't disregard serious arguments because people are anonymous, only shit-talking. FYI.

Hopefully you will sleep better than a 30 year old that was raped as a kid.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't sleep well at all. But in before accusations of pedophilia, I do find that shit creepy and disturbing and unacceptable. I just feel the same way about how people treat pedophiles in a world in which youth equals beauty, the bunch of fucking hypocrites.

Comment: Re:biological imperative (Score 1) 308

You may say that the chances that an adult could change their views are slim, but I'd say the chances that a child could be part of the solution when they grow up is just about as slim.

Ah, but the adult has to change their views and accomplish something, the bar is much higher.

Comment: Re:life in the U.S. (Score 4, Insightful) 128

by drinkypoo (#48903577) Attached to: Verizon, Cable Lobby Oppose Spec-Bump For Broadband Definition

I am not sure that this group of people has any business telling me what I need or don't need.

That's not what is happening. This is a group of people listening to the people and deciding what they need or don't need. People are asking for internet access that looks like it came from the first world, and the FCC is responding to that. 4Mbps is inadequate for many common purposes today. If you want our internet to remain third world, by all means, stand against the FCC in attempting to revise their definition of broadband.

The phone system was deliberately built out to cover us all because there are substantial benefits to such connection. Now, the internet must be built out to cover us all for similar reasons.

Comment: Re:biological imperative (Score 1) 308

I grow tired of people treating adults as if their lives are worth less than the lives of children,

But they are. The vast majority of adults are part of the problem, while children are potentially part of the solution — at least until their parents, who are hopefully adults, participate in their brainwashing and help turn them into good little taxpayers who will be silent and therefore lend their support to all the ills done in their name.

Comment: Re:Who are you? I'm bat- er, ANON! (Score 3, Insightful) 308

Before we go out on the street and call for a witch hunt, the common definition of "pedophilia" needs to be reformed, so that it again means actual child abuse,

You don't even know what pedophilia means. It doesn't mean child abuse, because "philia" doesn't mean abuse.

Trading sexually explicit pictures of minors by definition depends on minors being harmed. Trading non-sexually-explicit pictures of minors for sexual gratification is creepy as fuck, but it's not harming minors. Pedophilia isn't harming minors, child abuse is. Not all pedophiles abuse children, or even trade in media which actually involves children being subjected to child abuse.

Pedophilia has been equated with child abuse only for bad reasons, and here you are helping it along. Cut that ignorant shit out.

Comment: Re: Charged /= Guilty (Score 1) 308

There's nothing left for Anonymous to do, except to remind the world that this guy did something bad, and by so doing, perpetuate the shame and embarrassment his friends and family are subjected to. It won't affect the perpetrator himself, because he'll be in prison for the entire life of this "operation".

So, mission accomplished? Because how did this guy get this way? It couldn't have have been his family, you know, his upbringing?

ASHes to ASHes, DOS to DOS.