Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Why does it have to be liquid? (Score 1) 104

I would think - with my limited understanding of physics and cosmology- that Mars' smaller size, being about 1/3 the size/mass of Earth, would have to play some part in it's early "death". A smaller, less massive core would would probably not have the same inertia as a larger one; and less magnetic field, not to mention gravitational field, would make an atmosphere more vulnerable to the solar wind.

Comment Re:Oh great (Score 1) 80

Their gear has worked quite reliably for us. We had a Symmetrix DMX1000 for about 6 years, and a Centera, and EMC's service was impeccable; while the DMX did suffer from some hardware issues at one point, their FEs busted arse on it, and we never had an actual outage. Managing that beast was no picnic though. That was retired, and now we're using a CLARiiON CX-4 (bought from Dell at the time but also soon to be phased out) and a relatively VNX5400, both of which are much easier to manage and have been stable. *fingers crossed*
On that count though, Dell's not so terrible either; in some cases we've got a few Dell servers still running even though they're 8 years past EOL (yay for crap budgets) and some are stuck in some truly horrendous environments. It's hard to kill the 1650s, 1750s, and 1850s, apparently.

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 1) 283

What would be nice is our representatives only being on committees where they could prove they were competant on the subject matter.

Prove to who, by what standards? Maybe a legislator should be good at understanding the constitution, the wheels of policy making, the nature of government finance, etc., and then do what committees do ... bring in experts to testify so they'll hear from experts who specialize in the subject matter. An elected representative is supposed to be an expert at being a legislator. Expecting them to be fully formed IT experts or doctorate level virologists or masters of manufacturing processes is completely missing the point.

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 5, Funny) 283

This is why I'm seriously advocating that the weight of one's vote should be proportional to his knowledge + intelligent.

Does that mean that my vote will count more than yours, because I know the difference between "intelligent" and "intelligence?"

Be careful how you tell other people to measure things.

Comment Re:Who? (Score 1) 674

1) I don't care what RMS does with his toenails... it's his code and writing that I care about.

2) Who ever said that Torvalds "never does wrong"? Dude's not perfect, but he's managed to keep the kernel going strong this far. By comparison, what have you done?

Comment Re: Why? (Score 1) 446

To establish that fact, you'd have to engage in a psychological examination of the criminals.

No, you would not. Because the evidence is simple. The vast majority of the types of murders we're talking about are conducted by people illegally owning guns, most of which are stolen or otherwise illegally in possession of the person doing the deed. If criminals cared about illegally possessing guns, that simple fact wouldn't be true. There's no need for hand-wringing psychoanalysis ... just open your eyes.

This sentence, your basically saying solving the problem solves the problem.

No, I'm saying that solving the crime problem happens to solve the CRIME WITH GUNS problem. But the gun control think (or pretend to) that guns CAUSE the crime. I'm pointing out that they're being completely disingenuous, because they know that the problem is crime, not guns. They don't want to confront the human behavior part, because that means being judgmental about other people (and statistically, being judgmental especially about poor people and minorities) that are involved in most of that crime. Because that's the third rail of political correctness, they lazily pretend that controlling the guns that non-criminals might purchase will make crime go away so they don't have to confront the real problem: local culture.

And yet that is a contention that hasn't been proven, actually.

That's why you can't make any assertions about local gun laws, as the effect of local gun laws on the availability of guns has not been demonstrated.

It doesn't NEED to be. Unless you're suggesting that gun control laws make guns MORE available in the areas where they are used frequently in crimes. Is that really your contention? Otherwise guns are uniformly available across the country, but at least somewhat less so in areas like Chicago because of the draconian laws (which is why people who wanted to own them for self defense in their homes there had to take the matter to court).

First you have to reduce the supply of guns, then you can see what impact it has on the crime levels.

Why? We already see that crime level are much, much lower in most areas where guns are readily available. Guns are harder to legally purchase in Chicago, where they have a huge crime problem. Guns are readily available in other cities, where they do not have that problem. What if Chicago's laws have NO impact on gun ownership levels. So what? Let's say it is has zero effect, and that guns are just as available there as the are in, say, San Diego or Hartford. So what? The differential in crime is enormous. If you're really going to pretend that can't grasp that, then there's little point in continuing the conversation, because you're not fooling anybody.

Comment Re: Why? (Score 1) 446

You're not understanding the difference between long guns and pistols. Which is why I mentioned rifles, and specifically talked about the constantly pointless gun control focus on "assault weapons" (which aren't actually assault rifles, but look scary to people who don't understand that replacing wood with plastic doesn't change the way a semi-auto gun works).

Comment Re:Well if this is true (Score 2) 99

Then both those companies are shitbags.

Well, at least Verizon is telling people about it (albeit discreetly). Who knows how much sharing goes on behind the scenes?

There should be strict industry regulation of this kind of thing (ads, tracking, etc) a lot better than currently is.

If you even pretend to care about your privacy or reject this kind of advertising, it's better to just assume the worst. Block all advertising. Block all third-party scripts. Strongly consider blocking unknown first-party scripts.

And finally, next time someone in advertising or marketing whines about ad-blockers, consider following my wildly successful three-step program:

1) Explain that it's their own greedy-ass fault that people block this shit.
2) Punch them in the face.
3) Remind them that they should probably just commit seppuku.

Comment Re:Who? (Score 3, Interesting) 674

Given the downmods each of us got in the pile, it seems this is a contentious issue.

Personally, I disagree with your assessment, but that said, I am aware that one person's fair assessment followed by a harsher and unequivocal reply if the assessment is rejected, may easily be seen by another as undue abuse.

I make no apologies for the list, because it reminds me exactly of a typical USAF flightline. Doing something dumb or misguided will get you a direct and to-the-point talking-to; first logical and fair, but increasingly harsher if you continue to resist even listening.

The reasons why are different but just as serious: in the kernel, screw-ups in design and/or direction can eventually destroy the kernel's usefulness and flexibility. On the flightline, screwups in procedure or behavior will eventually get you killed.

The harshness against any whining and/or backtalk in either case is not just someone being a turd - it's a reminder that there are reasons for things being as they are, and any proposed changes had better have a damned good reason up-front.

HTH a little.

Comment Re:PT Barnum (Score 1) 172

Agreed. The only machine-type game that has any kind of consistent hope is playing odd/even on a roulette wheel with a single "0", which gives you a 48.6% (or so) chance of winning (a "00" on the wheel drops your chances to to 47.4%). Any other game that uses a machine will only get worse from there.

At least with single-deck poker (and no card-counters) you have some sort of chance... but only if you know what you're doing and are more skilled than your opponents.

Comment Re:Outsider (Score 1) 172

Actually, since the information they have is essentially the same, it's more like a slot machine tech working at one casino making slot bets at another. There's still a chance that the guy will lose, but his odds are way better than most, especially if he knows of certain bugs in certain machines and can leverage them.

It's a big reason why folks like the Nevada Gaming Commission demand that technicians not gamble at all (IIRC, it came in the wake of a technician exploiting a bug by way of a palmed magnet back in the 1990s(?) or so.)

A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you. -- Ramsey Clark