Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Your laws ignore my rights (Score 2) 285

Considering that they were the 0.1% of their day, they'll probably be all right with it. If you look at the history, you'll notice that their main beef was with taxes. And taxes are usually only something people who have lots will be riled up over enough to start a revolution. Poor people start revolutions over things like food.

Comment Re:Your laws ignore my rights (Score 1) 285

What's that got to do with it?

But yes, immigrants will consider laws against immigration unjust and hence break them. Whether I consider them good or not does not matter simply because they don't really apply to me. It's like abortion laws, how I perceive them should be irrelevant considering that they do not apply to me.

Comment Your laws ignore my rights (Score 5, Insightful) 285

I consider it well inside my rights to ignore your laws.

In less martial words, issuing laws that contravene the consensus of the population is dangerous. Laws are upheld mostly because people consider them good, not because they are being enforce. Look around you and ponder which laws are upheld (in general) and which one are flauntingly broken. Do you see people go on murdering sprees, bank robberies or even do some minor shit like pushing grannies out of the way? No. Why? Not because they're forbidden, but because they go against the "general moral consensus", for a lack of a better term. People in general consider this "wrong". Yes, they are also illegal, but that doesn't matter too much.

On the other hand, people of all times have broken laws without remorse if those laws were considered unjust. From speeding to copyright to drugs, all covered by laws with fines and punishment that are in no remotely sensibly proportion to the crime involved, laws being ignored and broken routinely by people you would otherwise consider upstanding, moral and law abiding.

The actual danger here is in the view people get on laws in general.

If you need an example for this, look no further than the former Communist Bloc. People in there quickly noticed that the laws are not there to protect them from "bad people", but to protect the state against them. Which in turn led to a corruption without parallel, because the average citizen's attitude was "why bother giving a shit about the state if it doesn't give one about me?".

And we can have that too. If we insist in installing more and more laws that work against our population. People already don't ask what "they can do for their country" anymore. Oppression and trying to enforce even more ridiculously anti-population laws will only increase resistance to them, to the point where people will actually resent and oppose the state as much as people in the former East Bloc did resent and oppose their state.

Ok, we cannot flee to a west. There is none.

But there's always necks to be severed.

Comment Re:I think they're missing the point (Score 1) 208

Basically the only thing that the average Joe might be doing with his PC where the machine he has isn't by default "good enough", no matter how old it may be, is playing games. Everything else Joe Average may be doing with it is nearly certainly going to run sufficiently fast and stable on whatever crate he has.

It's been that way for quite a while now, actually. Since XP there has not been any big step ahead that the average person would notice in his (Windows) OS.

Comment Shouldn't that prize be for promoting PEACE? (Score 1) 51

I do have to say that yes, what they overthrew were no angels. By no stretch of the word (maybe if you add "hell's" before it). But these dictators did one thing: Keep shit quiet. Yes, with force and oppression. But there was PEACE.

Let's take a look at the whole shit now, shall we? North Africa is less stable than ever and the "spring'ed" countries of the Middle East are being overrun by ISIS. That's peace?

And here I was thinking after Obama and "the EU", you couldn't get any more off. But you sure outdid yourself again, committee. Well? Next year maybe ISIS gets a chance to get one.

It's only the logical extension of the practice so far.

Comment Re: ...uhh (Score 1) 184

But would we recognize the intent? There was this number experiment by Cornelis de Jager who showed that with a handful of numbers and some creative application of math, you can prove that these numbers are "special" and that whoever used them has a profound understanding of math. He used some values derived from his bicycle to show that whoever made this must have superspecial knowledge of quantum physics because if you multiplied the pedal way with the square root of the bell's diameter and divided it by ... you get the idea.

This was done to debunk the number mysticism behind the Pyramids and other ancient buildings where some ancient alien loonies claimed that, since the length of the sides and the height and whatnot can calculate some physical constants down to some numbers behind the comma. de Jager showed that you can pull a handful numbers out of your ass and, putting them through some math, you can calculate any physical constant you want.

That also works for conspiracy theories, btw.

So when you show some alien that you know a constant, you also have to show them that you actually intend to show it to them.

Comment What the bleepin' fuck? (Score 1) 143

No access point on this planet has the potential to actually cause any meaningful interference with anything by a simple change in its firmware. Either you have to tinker with the hardware, attach some serious antennas or otherwise boost its rather mediocre power, but nothing you could do to its software alone could possibly create the alleged interference causing device the FCC seems to fear.

Actually, to create such a thing, all I have to do is modifying the hardware. Something that locking down the software will not even remotely address.

So, spill it. What's the deal? You're lying, FCC. What's the real reason?

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.