Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Let's get real (Score 1) 214

In your eagerness to stop the fear mongering you badly understate North Korea's capability.

Proof is needed, not speculation. Understating according to who? The local populace? South Korea? Maybe.. but that is not because the DPRK has enough military power to win a war, it's because they have the potential to do a hell of a lot of damage to Seoul and a few other Norther areas if a war started. They lack air and naval power to win anything.

20 years ago guys like you declared the same things, that the North's economy and tyranny made scientific accomplishments like nukes and rockets impossible. Since then they've detonated nukes(plural) and launched satellites(plural again). I'm not sure where you've set the bar for 'meaningful' but the North has made succeeded in building nuclear weapons and launching rockets around the world.

Ahh, nothing like the old red herring line of shit. I did not state that scientific accomplishments were impossible, I said it was expensive and they could not afford it. Expensive in terms of both man power and money, and man power when you don't trust anyone is certainly a pretty huge hurdle to cross. Care to guess at how many scientists are killed annually in the DPRK? Percentage wise, it's higher than many other jobs because scientists tend to think and question more. Tyrannies have always had this problem with keeping scientific minds, read some history books.

The reality is that if Seoul wasn't housing 10million people within range of North Korean artillery, NATO probably would have removed the Kim dynasty generations ago.

Horse shit! The number 1 reason that people claim to ignore the DPRK is "China", not the geographical location in relation to South Korea.

You keep on spreading FUD though.. it works on the masses who don't question or contemplate what they get told.

Comment Re:Current use != Original intent w/proof (Score 1) 132

Seriously, you can't see the difference between a Police officer finding evidence at a crime scene, and a Police officer reading your personal emails to find something? Are you really trying to claim that the founders were so goddamn naive they believed that people in power are, and would always be altruistic?

There is a world of difference between a random search, and a warrant being issued due to evidence related to a crime. If you don't see the difference and are not just a troll, I hope your masters pay you well.

Comment Current use != Original intent w/proof (Score 1) 132

I have to point out the obvious, which is that there has been nearly 2 centuries of people pumping money into propaganda to convince people that the Constitution and Bill of Rights means what they want to mean, not what was intended originally. That people continue believing increasing levels of bullshit is not a surprise, incremental change is how things always happen. Propaganda and Sociology are not "new" sciences by any stretch of the imagination, but also not something normal people get taught about.

So read some history and figure out what was intended by the 5th, and you will find that it does not match the currently used "spun" definition. I'll give you an easy one, which history will verify repeatedly. If you need citation start at the Federalist papers, Biographies, and court documents from the US and England.

At the time of the Revolution, British soldiers were searching people's houses for things like diaries. If you had the wrong shit written in yours, you were executed and sometimes sent to a nice London jail. Vague writings were the best, because a person disliked could easily be charged with a crime based on their own words with invented outcomes. Speculative thought crimes like "he was thinking treason" were as common as false allegations, "see he was mad at the Smithers so killed that guy everyone thought was mauled by the bear". It was all about who disliked you and what dirt they could find on you (nothing new there). The limitations in the Constitution were intended to prevent the Government or an agent from searching your crap and using it to possibly invent a crime based on their findings. The part about "speech" is a newly formed pile of shit which people are gullible and ignorant enough to believe.

History will show you the "meaning" of all of the wording in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Contrary to bullshitter and con-artists statements, there is no ambiguity or accidental language in the documents. None, zero, zip, nada, nill, null, etc.. etc...

Comment Re:Let's get real (Score 1) 214

My point was to correct the possible perception you or anyone else has about "tiny" nukes being something the DPRK has, or would be able to use in any offensive capability. Your casual use of the technology has the potential of inflate the fear mongering, especially next statements about "nuclear or thermonuclear warheads" and lack of mention of "cost" for any of those things. The 3rd world economy of the DPRK, and tyrannical government, mean that they do not have the budge or manpower for any meaningful development of WMDs like nukes.

Comment Re:Let's get real (Score 3, Interesting) 214

I know next to nothing about nuclear or thermonuclear warheads other than that a modern thermonuclear warhead is pretty damn small. But I suspect that downsizing a bomb once you have one that works probably is not that big a deal. e.g. the US exploded its first nuclear weapon in July 1945. By 1953 the US was deploying a nuclear artillery system. I think it unlikely that the warhead for that was more than a few hundred kg. But what do I know?

That first sentence is honest, and ignorance is easily cured. "Modern" warheads owned by the US are not the same as "Modern" warheads owned by any other nation, especially the DPRK. The US spends, and has spent, massive amounts of money over a massive amount of time developing a nuclear weapons program.

Nuclear "artillery" is costly beyond belief, extremely limited in usability, only effective if there are other larger backers. It is the ultimate weapon of last resort when defending, but has almost zero use outside of that. Time to set up, maintenance of the munitions, handling of the munition, and protecting the munition are complex and costly activities. A tiny warhead mishandled or sabotaged in a base destroys the base and everyone in it.

The DPRK is once again being used for fear mongering. Fear mongering is the main reason why nobody has gone to war to end the regime. The US, UK, and everyone else in NATO loves the DPRK because "scare the populace to get what you want without revolt". China and Russia like them because the west military build up means they can justify their own investments in military power. The recent fear of the H-Bomb is just to convince people that the DPRK can now use small nukes (which it can't), and the fear mongering because of their current missiles, which are SCUD missiles, which can't even launch a tiny satellite... laughable.

Comment A Click starts a negotiation, it doesn't end one (Score 1) 644

this isn't a situation where the context exists whether it's paid for or not.

I'm not sure I'm following this part. This isn't a chick/egg situation. If there is no content, I have no reason to go to a site. If I don't go to a site, I don't care what ridiculous requirements they think they can impose on me to see their lack of content. If there is content, but the rules for seeing it are too much of a burden on me, then it might as well not exist.
Say some new site pops up. They have to have some reason for people to go there. They could offer samples of their content, they could make note of some famous writer that is working for them, they could have agreements for exclusive content from some company/industry/whatever. It doesn't matter what their angle is, any time I type their URL in the address bar, or click a link that goes there, we are starting a new negotiation for data exchange. If I don't like the rules they impose, I am free to leave. If content producers want to wall off their content, whether it's ads, scripts, flash, requiring an app be installed, cookies, or some other restriction, they are also free to do that

The whole damn point of the enterprise is to make some jingle.

This person is correct. Some of the discussion on this topic has gone down the path of: "The internet existed before ads!" While true, we're also very much enjoying the content that ad-revenue is bringing us today, ignoring that fact will not lead to a proper negotiation with the content producers to show some sensibility when it comes to monetizing our eyeballs.

I'm familiar with the history of how content on the internet has been financed. I also enjoy the increased amount of content that is available when compared to 1996. That said, there has to be some better way than what we have now. There is no content that is worth the drain created by scripts, trackers, flash, and the like.

Comment A Click starts a negotiation, it doesn't end one (Score 2) 644

If the content is soooo special that they feel the need to rape my computer before I see it, the site can require a subscription or dedicated app. Clicking a link is not an agreement on my part to accept any and all conditions of the site in order to view the content. Clicking a link is the beginning of a negotiation for exchange of data. A negotiation that I will leave if third party scripts, third party ads, tracking cookies, or flash content are requirements.

Comment Re: Ok. (Score 2) 644

I don't get to choose what the site sends as a response, that is correct. I DO get to choose what to do with that response. If it doesn't include scripts, doesn't try to track me through the site or to other sites, doesn't include any Flash based elements, and doesn't include ads that are hosted by a third party, chances are I will allow my web browser to load and display the provided response.
If any of the above are included, they will be blocked. If that means I cannot see the content, then I will leave and make a note of how that site treated me. After a few times, I'll just quit clicking links to that site. If I am quite interested in the content, I'll use a search engine to find a different site with a similar story. If non exists, oh well, I'll get over it.
Clicking on a link is not a signal to the remote site owner that I am willing to let them abuse my computing resources in any way they choose, it is merely an attempt to negotiate an exchange of data.

Comment You got the point! (Score 2) 132

It is not about protecting "their" ideas, it's about brain washing people that it's okay to own an idea. This already happens today, but we sure don't hear any debate about the Government fixing patent trolls and the laws that allow abuse. In reality, that is small potatoes. Big players own all the big ideas. No need to troll is involved.

The brain washing will stop us peons from challenging the status quo.

Comment Re:Seems reasonable (Score 2) 173

Are they going to apply this same logic to data centers? How many other business types do they wish to micro-manage?

I can understand that the Utility Company wants to get back what they would spend to upgrade the infrastructure to support the BTC miners. Why can't they just state that up front, bill them for the upgrades, and work out some sort of contract for payment? That's what they do if you want utilities run to some place where they don't exist.

Comment FUD on top of FUD (Score 4, Informative) 699

Linux is anything but fragile. Stop blaming the OS for a shitty design in UEFI! Linux is so stable and solid that it lets you run "rm -rf /" and it will actually do what you asked it to until it can no longer figure out the machine it's on and commands needed to talk to a disk. This is a more than 45 year old design. Yes, that's right. In AT&T's original Unix you could also kill a system with "rm -rf /".

'but', 'but', 'but', oh shut up and stop spreading FUD! "rm" is the remove command, "-r" is recursive, and "-f" is force. You need to be root to run this with any success, so it's not like any old user can remove everything.

The problem is that UEFI allows an OS to write to areas which it should not be able to write to. If you open all the PROM in a system it's not just the OS that can brick a system. A malicious person can do so just as easy, and without being so obvious as running "rm -rf /"

Comment Re:You seem to have missed their "logic" (Score 1) 539

this is not about freedom to express. It is about a freedom not to listen to someone else when they do.

Are you talking about the freedom of expression? The one that allows people to freely participate in groups of their choosing - and as you put, not of their choosing? It also lets people form groups to promote the interests of that group. This "SJW" crisis that you've manufactured is just groups of people who don't want to associate and private businesses saying "wow, it's in our best interests to promote this group of consumer!" What it sounds like you're talking about is the government mandating private business - which is what I consider the opposite of freedom.

I'll give you a quick test to see if your freedom of speech has been taken away online: step 1: go to, if it is still up, you still have freedom of speech.

Your test is simply asinine and unrealistic. Losing freedom of speech is does not require that you go to jail for saying something. It requires that a person becomes intimidated and afraid to speak. TFA is about ads having priority over your choice of what to see, read, and hear. On sites like Slashdot you will hear argument against this type of thing, but you won't be hearing it on the evening news. There are people who wish to control everything you read, see, and hear. It's about power, plain and simple.

I gave a hint at the connection between the controlled narrative and what we are seeing in media and politics. There is no "manufactured" SJW crisis, there is a fixed narrative which is being spread. You don't have to connect the dots or like the connections, but they are surely there. Anyone who wishes can listen to politicians, watch the evening news, and listen to the "extremists" which we are told don't matter and see the connections.

Slashdot Top Deals

% "Every morning, I get up and look through the 'Forbes' list of the richest people in America. If I'm not there, I go to work" -- Robert Orben