Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:This is *SO* unethical ! (Score 1) 65

Sadly, EULAs and the like tell them they can do this. Courts have upheld it. Which means taking them at their word is pretty much useless.

What? If the user who wants to participate in online discussions on a private company's web site agrees to a EULA that states that the owner of the web site reserves the right to change the conditions of using the site, then that's exactly what you signed up for. The only "sadly" involved is users sadly not reading what they agree to. Most people in the gimme-dat-free-stuff mindset don't think things through anyway.

Real names policies exist because companies say "what value can I get from selling the fact that SuitWrinkler53 commented on the website?" and deciding that they can't sell that information.

Or, if you're a publisher, those policies exist in order to spare the publishers huge ongoing legal expenses in dealing with inquiries and even subpoenas related to digging out real names or other information about trolling, libelous, or otherwise criminal users.

And then you realize they don't know much about the underlying technology, and are probably using something like WordPress.

No, then we realize that you're talking out of your ass and haven't bothered to so much as view the source on one of their pages in order to see that you're wrong. And that the paper - like so many who can't afford to go about it in any other way - are using a third party SaaS solution. Which means a single code base for many clients, which means no, customizing it for one customer isn't always desirable or even do-able.

They just have to remind you it's technically private property, and that the license says they can change the terms if they wish.

Oh, so you DO get it. What are you bitching about, then?

Comment Re:Because the CIA is evil. (Score 1) 235

The reason why Saddam was under that disposal and inspection regime was *because* of those things

You mean, the things that didn't exist? What are you saying exactly? You're trying to have it both ways.

What Saddam did in the past and was under restrictions for is itself not a valid pretext for invasion.

Sure it is, because he refused to comply with the requirements that arose from everything that went before. And you're STILL pretending that his forces never ceased to target those protecting the no-fly zone, wasn't robbing from UN food and relief funds to buy more weapons, and so on.

Where was the evidence of WMDs? None.

I know, I know, you're trying to wish away the deaths of thousands of people killed with exactly those non-existent WMDs that you simultaneously say were the basis for the inspection regime. I suspect you're don't actually listen to yourself, in order to avoid realizing how silly you sound.

Almost 15 years past we have not found any evidence of hidden/buried caches

Right, just the places where they USED to be, and which were blocked from inspection while he was still in power.

Comment Re:Hydro = from the sun (Score 1) 95

Direct solar may sound nice and work fine in small scale, but collectors would have to cover great areas to be effective

The total world energy consumption is somewhere around 100PWh/year. That's around 274TWh/day. The sunlight hitting the Earth is around 1kW/m^2, so 8kWh/m^2 assuming 8 hours of sunlight. If you assume 100% efficiency in conversion (totally impossible, but we'll start there and refine later), then that means that you need about 3.45E10 m^2 of land devoted to solar power. That's a square about 185km on each side. If you assume 10% efficiency (mass produced photovoltaics are 12-25% these days), then you need an area about 342000km^2, or about the area of Germany, to power the entire world. Now, given the efficiency of power distribution, you probably wouldn't want to put it all in one place, but you could easily fit solar panels enough that, even with transmission losses, you could power all of North America in Utah or Texas without anyone noticing. The difficulty is not the generation, it's the storage.

Comment Re:Because the CIA is evil. (Score 1, Interesting) 235

Do you mean waterboarding? The very same technique to which thousands of US military people have subjected themselves during routine training? That sort of thing?

And "behind the Irag invasions" ... what? Do you meant the invasion conducted by dozens of allies following Saddam's attempt to take over Kuwait? Or do you mean the follow-up invasion that occurred because Saddam never met any of his obligations following the cease-fire has his invasion was pushed back, and as he continued to fire on aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones over the territories occupied by the ethnic minorities he'd been systematically killing with air strikes and WMD's? Silly me, of course you know all of that, and you're just a cowardly anonymous troll out to re-write history and, as a another lying little lefty, trying to distract everyone from the fact that the party you want in power will be run by Hillary Clinton, who saw all the same intelligence and supported (through her own votes and vocal support) both the original conflict and the second one that completed it. Hint: people actually pay attention, so just lying about it doesn't actually change history.

Comment Re:Because the CIA is evil. (Score 2) 235

There was never any strong evidence for WMDs regardless of what rumors may have been out there

You're actively pretending that Saddam didn't USE his chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. And you're completely mischaracterizing the UN inspection team's early observations of large caches of VX that could NOT be later accounted for (remember the huge, completely phony "documentation" dump provided by Saddam's people to the UN, followed by active blocking of UN inspectors whenever they asked for unplanned inspections of the very places they thought they might find such things?). Yes, I remember Hans Blix, but you're choosing not to remember how things actually played out on the ground as his inspectors were turned away time and time again.

Comment Re:Because the CIA is evil. (Score -1, Flamebait) 235

Seriously, the CIA is responsible for the creation of Al Qaeda as a threat to America, you're welcome for 9/11.

So let's see ... as everyone has had to do through all of history, we worked with regional interests to help push back against the greater bad guy (the Soviets, continuing to try to expand their territory). The regional guys turn out to have their own post-Soviet-fight agenda. You, however, as typical nonsensical racist, think that people from that region aren't able to make their own decisions or set out to fulfill their own wishes. No, to you those Foreign Brown People are like zombies that would sit and do nothing without the controlling wizardry of Teh Eeevil Amerikkka blah blah blah.

the drone killing campaign which spawns ten terrorists for every one it kills

I see. So you're a bigger fan of going in on the ground with huge column of armor and troops and the supporting logistics so that we can, instead of using deliberate air strikes, get into a non-stop series of random street fights while trying to kill the same terrorists, but instead rack up huge collateral damage while also telegraphing every move on the ground and chasing the targets out of range for months on end. That is an EXCELLENT alternative. And of course that strategy wouldn't do anything to inspire new jihaddi recruits, no not at all.

stupid illegal invasion of Iraq

Oh, here we go. I didn't realize you were just trolling. Sorry. Since you're revising history and just making stuff up, I guess we'll call it a day.

Comment Re:Smearing? (Score 5, Informative) 235

Are you being serious?

Let's assume for a moment, that you aren't being a blatant troll here. With that in mind, here's why it is a smear.

1) The paris terrorists did not use encryption at all--
2) The French government, and the US government already had people warning them about the impending attacks.
3) Snowden's leaks centered around *ILLEGAL* intelligence gathering practices, and his leaks were carefully sanitized and redacted by reporters with journalistic integrity.
4) Unless you think Russia is somehow behind the paris attacks, there is nothing that ties Snowden with said attacks-- and even that is just supposition. (There is shit little Snowden has given Russia besides PR.)

The only connection here is that Snowden drew attention to the US's (and its allies') use of illegal data collection for intelligence purposes, which gave the US a black eye, (and a much needed one at that.) and the administrators behind those illegal data collection practices want to try to assert (falsely) that they could have stopped the paris attack, if it hadn't been for that meddling kid-- Erhm-- Edward Snowden.

This is bullshit-- as again, the terrorists were using unencrypted channels of communication, AND were already known about by intelligence agents/agencies-- who already knew the attack was going to happen.

So, why didn't they stop it? Oh-- yeah-- Because Edward Snowden somehow used whistleblower black magic to somehow make it so they couldnt act on the intelligence they had already collected.... Somehow.

All that said-- Seriously, go troll somewhere else.

Comment Good old fashioned crisis management... (Score 5, Interesting) 235

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Rahm Emanuel

Aren't politics grand? Gotta further an agenda while the corpses are still warm. (You lose impact any other way, you see.) /s

Comment Re:Less service? (Score 1) 447

Granted I don't know much about cars, but don't eletric cars still need winter tires, aren't there still moving parts that needs oil, etc?

You only need winter tires if you're in a location that experiences winter. Even then, for most of the USA good quality all-seasons* are more than sufficient. You still need to replace them though.

Yes, there's generally still 'lots' of oil in an electric vehicle. However, the reason engine oil needs to be replaced so often is heat and contamination. The heat breaks down the oil eventually, and the byproducts of combustion contaminate it, which is why you need a filter.

The oil in a properly operating EV never gets that hot though, and is thus treated more like gear oil - so it's like the oil in your transmission, gear boxes, etc... Which is generally changed out far less often.

Regular maintenance items an EV needs: Tires, wipers, wiper fluid, cabin air filter, lights, etc...
Regular maintenance that an EV doesn't need: Engine oil, coolant, brake pads*, air filter, spark plugs, etc...
Maintenance that's more expensive on an EV: Replacing the battery, but costs are coming down 'quickly'.

*EVs still have brake pads, but regenerative braking cuts their usage enough that a pad designed to last around a decade for a regular vehicle lasts the lifetime of an EV.

*Disclaimer: ~2" of snow and today I had to push a woman in a tiny car who had gotten stuck in the middle of the road because she was driving on half-worn 'all seasons' that were 90% summer tire.

Comment Re:Easy solution (Score 4, Informative) 447

Which state would that be, as the ACs mention?
From wiki:

In the United States, direct manufacturer auto sales are prohibited in almost every state by franchise laws requiring that new cars be sold only by dealers.

Customer Experience
According to one survey, more than half of dealership customers would prefer to buy directly from the manufacturer, without any monetary incentives to do so. An analyst report of a direct sales model is estimated to cut the cost of a vehicle by 8.6%.[11] This implies an even greater demand currently exists for a direct manufacturer sales model. However, state laws in the United States prohibit manufacturers from selling directly, and customers must buy through a dealer.

Comment Not the first full recovery from space (Score 1) 121

SpaceShip One touched space and all elements were recovered and flew to space again.

BO's demonstration is more publicity than practical rocketry. It doesn't look like the aerodynamic elements of BO's current rocket are suitable for recovery after orbital injection, just after a straight up-down space tourism flight with no potential for orbit, just like SpaceShip One (and Two). They can't put an object in space and have it stay in orbit. They can just take dudes up for a short and expensive view and a little time in zero gee.

It's going to be real history when SpaceX recovers the first stage after an orbital injection, in that it will completely change the economics of getting to space and staying there.

Comment Re: pilots once they start flying their unmanned.. (Score 1) 192

Imagine if RC cars were a relatively new thing.. and people started attaching cameras to them and driving them on the freeway around emergency responders.

There are already laws in place to punish anyone doing such a thing. Just like there already are for flying model airplanes in the way of real aircraft.

"I've seen the forgeries I've sent out." -- John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US), about forging net news articles