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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Home of the brave? (Score 4, Insightful) 393

by khasim (#48622319) Attached to: Top Five Theaters Won't Show "The Interview" Sony Cancels Release

Yep. And even more so.

If you live in the USofA then you have a larger chance of being killed by your spouse / boyfriend / girlfriend / YOUR OWN CHILDREN than by a terrorist.

Just by waking up alive you have alread beaten the "terrorist" odds today.

And in this specific case, what are the "terrorists" going to do? Steal your credit card number? Pay cash instead.

Comment: Mod parent up. (Score 3, Insightful) 151

by khasim (#48612107) Attached to: In IT, Beware of Fad Versus Functional

And he makes a FUNDAMENTAL mistake by focusing on "defining how a new technology approach will add value".

At the CxO level that is easy to do. It will allow the company to synergize your core with blah blah buzzword blah buzzword.

But the reality is that it is about adding more achievements and buzzwords to someone's resume so that they can move on before their choices bite them.

Comment: Re:Comparison equally valid on both sides (Score 1) 865

by SuperKendall (#48602851) Attached to: Apparent Islamic Terrorism Strikes Sydney

To be fair we are bombing ISIS territories and various Arab nations (via drones) and killing a crapload of non-military forces.

I'm not going to defend the drone strikes, but I will point out that every one is absolutely an attempt to strike some military target, the question is what percentage they get wrong...

There is no chance that taking over a coffee shop is going to be a strike at a military target.

Comment: Re:Check your math. (Score 2, Informative) 865

by khasim (#48598461) Attached to: Apparent Islamic Terrorism Strikes Sydney

Conservative Christians do indeed suck, but I can't think of any serious terrorist or even violent activity by Christians in a very long time, except for a couple cases of some lone wacko shooting an abortion doctor.

The difference is the power structure.

You don't have to personally beat someone for your beliefs if you can have the police do it for you because your beliefs are the law.

Muslims, however, are infamous for organizing to do violent deeds.

The same can be said (and has) about the black "rioters" and the current protests here.

Advocating for various laws (which aren't very successful BTW, gay marriage is becoming more and more accepted in America now and is becoming legal all over; these days I think most ultraconservatives are more worried about illegal immigration, gun control, and various other issues than about gay marriage) is not similar to carrying out violent, terroristic acts.

The difference is whether the majority view them as "legitimate" exercises of violence.

Passing a law that will be used more against X than Y will not be seen as a problem by Y. And the Y's will tend to view any X that complains as being a problem.

100 years ago blacks could not marry whites. And violence against a black man accused of sex with a white woman was "justified".

20 years ago gay marriage was illegal. And it wasn't a "hate crime" to beat someone just because you thought he was gay. I remember online arguments just 10 years ago.

Right now there are states where it is legal to have an abortion BUT it is almost impossible due to the legal restrictions placed upon it. Even if the woman's life is in danger.

Those with the power to make and enforce the laws do not need to personally take hostages.

Comment: Comparison equally valid on both sides (Score 2) 865

by SuperKendall (#48597883) Attached to: Apparent Islamic Terrorism Strikes Sydney

If you're a religious fanatic in the Middle East and want to kill Christians you become a terrorist. ...

Or, you can join ISIS (the army killing and/or enslaving/raping everyone including Christians).

So there's an equal choice to be had, yet some are choosing to capture and harm non-military forces - those people doing so have been wholly Muslim.

Comment: Re:makes no sense (Score 2) 262

by Rockoon (#48595301) Attached to: Judge Rules Drug Maker Cannot Halt Sales of Alzheimer's Medicine

I personally take a XR medication, even though there are cheap generics for the older two-a-day formulation. If my insurance situation changed for the worse, I'd switch in a heartbeat...

The people in your insurance pool should see to it that you are removed from it, one way or another. Seriously. You are a selfish bastard. Fuck you.

Comment: Re:Can you say... (Score 1) 262

by Rockoon (#48595239) Attached to: Judge Rules Drug Maker Cannot Halt Sales of Alzheimer's Medicine

Patents have traditionally had an exploitation requirement: you can't just patent something and then sit on it...

You missed the step where they have to disclose, to the public, their invention. Thats why you CAN patent something and then do nothing with it. If you dont want to profit from it before the time is up, then the jokes on you.

This is also why many of the techniques that Intel uses to manufacture chips are not patented. They do not want to disclose, to the public, all of their methods.

Intel now sits on un-patented techniques that it no longer uses, and that my clueless friend is "sitting on it."

Comment: Re:Can you say... (Score 1) 262

by Rockoon (#48595217) Attached to: Judge Rules Drug Maker Cannot Halt Sales of Alzheimer's Medicine

That's effectively what they are. They don't do the testing.

They do banning, which is NOT "effectively" what he talked about.

The FDA should not be banning things. Speak from that perspective when you wish to trot out your anti-libertarian bullshit. Whats that? Can't do it without the strawmen? yeah... you can't.

Comment: Re:Here comes some heresy... (Score 0) 78

by BasilBrush (#48594235) Attached to: Proposed Theme Park Would Put BBC Shows On Display

Comedy always dates. Morecambe and Wise was hilarious in it's heyday in the 1970s, and well deserved a majority of the population watching the Christmas specials. But anyone watching now would be mildly amused at best. This isn't because 1970s audiences were wrong, or were just enjoying a few highlights. It was virtually all very funny. It's just that comedy dates.

Same goes for The Young ones. Same for League of Gentlemen and Little Britain, which have already dated. Same goes for Red Dwarf and The Office.

I'm sure the same is true of Monty Python and Spike Milligan, though as I was a kid when they were first broadcast I can't speak from authority there.

At one time, the jokes in Shakespeare would have been genuinely funny.

Comment: Re:Sound like... (Score 0) 78

by BasilBrush (#48594145) Attached to: Proposed Theme Park Would Put BBC Shows On Display

Bans on smoking in public places and workplaces typically extend to TV studios.

They don't in England. So long as you can justify it dramatically, and there is no reasonable replacement there is an exception for theatrical film and TV smoking indoors.

So a brief shot at a distance you could reasonably be required to use an ecig as a replacement. But a longer close up shot may require the generation of ash, and the diminishing length of a real cigarette.

In Scotland however, there is no such exception.

(This is AFAIK, based on the rules in the year after the smoking ban came in. It's possible that it's changed, but I doubt it.)

Excessive login or logout messages are a sure sign of senility.

Working...