Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Remember the Pentagon Papers (Score 3, Insightful) 472 472

You're misreading what I wrote, so let me say it again a little differently: No government anywhere anytime is going to openly condone the things that Snowden did. You're also missing out where I said what he did needed to be done, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be villified by the government for doing it. For all we know, Obama and any number of other people in our government are happy he did what he did and is now taking the heat for it (for the rest of his life) because it relieved them of the burden of wanting to do it themselves if they also knew about these things but were (understandably) too chicken to do it themselves. However, again: no government is going to officially, publicly condone such a thing being done. It would be utter chaos if they did.

Comment Re:Mod parent down (Score 1) 59 59

I've read through a sampling of your own comments, and find it rather ironic that you're calling me 'elitist' when apparently it's not beneath you to do precisely the same thing. Do you have to have supplemental oxygen all the way up there on your mountaintop, or have you adapted to the altitude?

Comment Is anyone actually suprised? (Score 5, Insightful) 472 472

Did Snowden do something that needed to be done? Yes. Did he essentially end his own life in the process? Yes. Does anyone actually believe that he thought there would be any other outcome from his actions, or that he wouldn't have a price on his head for the rest of his life? Not if you have at least two working brain cells, you don't. You could have had a hundred million signatures on that petition, and it wouldn't matter, because pardoning him would set a dangerous precedent, essentially declaring open season on any and all State secrets that anyone with access thought should be revealed. You can't even blame Obama for any of this in this case; any head of any government would say 'no' for the same reasons.

Comment Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money (Score 1) 554 554

Tell you what, friend:
First, you show us your degree(s) in economics. Next, show us your detailed analysis of the U.S. economy, in three modes: (1) As it currently stands, (2) With Hilary Clinton's proposals implemented, and (3) With your suggestion to 'end all Federal subsidies' implemented.
Otherwise, it just sounds like you're just being a complainer.
Honestly, I sympathize with you, I'd like it if my wages were tax-free. But even without having a PhD in economics myself, my own common sense tells me that yanking the rug out from under any number of industries in the U.S. like that probably wouldn't be very good for the overall economy. Also, it seems to me that people don't like change, and will resist it, so sometimes in order for a change for the better to happen, there needs to be a nudge from the outside to get things moving. Just my opinions, mind you. What isn't my opinion is that fossil fuels are, and always have been, a limited resource, their use not very good for the environment, and we're sooner or later going to have to move away from them. Sooner would be better. Solar is one of several, non-mutually-exclusive paths away from fossil fuels. Seems like a better way to spend taxpayer money than on, say, more on the military, don't you think?

Comment Re:Under what authority? (Score 1) 292 292

People who are inclined to become police in the first place are all too often people who are not primarily interested in law and order, but people who are interested in having power over as many people as humanly possible, and being police enables that. Screening processes are supposed to help weed out those types, but apparently it's either not working, or this type of personality is so deeply embedded in the police community that they're just ignoring all that and bringing in more and more people just like them. We see the results.

Comment Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech? (Score 2) 292 292

A brief review and analysis of your commenting history reveals that you are, indeed, likely a 'neckbeard', but that's besides the point: you're just another one of those jackasses that likes to argue for no reason other than arguing, and insulting people is just a means to an end for you. Please shut up and go away, the Internet is shitty enough without more and more of you making it shittier.

Comment Re:We need better legislation (Score 1) 102 102

On further consideration I think it might just end up being the case that there will be more than one 'class' of drones, the easiest to obtain having severely limited (by law) range of remote control and perhaps limited altitude. You go out of range of the control signal, and it just shuts down and drops to the ground, which won't be much of a problem because it'll only be a few dozen feet off the ground anyway. Larger and more complex drones would require a permit or license of some sort, and definitely registration, and there would need to be some sort of education and testing (similar to what you have to do to get a drivers license) before you'd be allowed to get your drone. The largest and most complex drones would require more extensive (and expensive) permit(s)/licensing/registering, with commensurately more comprehensive education and testing, and perhaps even requiring a justification for it's use and/or a business license to obtain.

..and anyway, that's what I think is going to end up happening, based on my gut feeling for how our government works. Fair? I don't know, but I will say this: you can thank the idiots making a nuisance of themselves for it if and when legislation like this comes about. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with things shaking out as outlined above, but I also don't have and don't particularly want or need a drone anyway.

Comment Re:Air Regulations Are For Cows (Score 1) 102 102

You know what? You may be right.

I had thought you were just another of the 'first post' guys, with nothing better to do.. but what if people are turning into cows? Or more accurately: cattle? Think about it: We keep moving towards more 'conveniences': machines to do everyday things for us, instead of people actually learning to do those things for themselves. Even automobiles: there is a segment of the population (thankfully, it seems to be a small segment) that doesn't even want to learn to drive themselves, doesn't care if there are even controls in the car for them to use (which frankly is insane of them to want). Imagine a potential dystopian world of the future, where the only things humans actually do for themselves, is eat and reproduce, everything else is done by machines, or robots, or AIs. Some short-sighted and/or lazy people would consider that a utopia, but in reality it would be a total disaster waiting to happen: when things break down, or malfunction, suddenly you have people who can't even do basic things for themselves, let alone complex things. The human race becomes like cattle, incapable of determining their own destiny; not even living, but just existing, no purpose, no direction, just consume, consume, consume, reproduce, and die.

No thanks. I'll stick to actually knowing how to do things for myself. Don't worry, though, I'll remember to drop off feed for the rest of you into your corral.

Moo.

Comment Re:Where have all the Slashdotters gone? (Score 2, Insightful) 59 59

Really? So you think all the untreated sewage on places like the *chans, Reddit, Stormfront, etc etc etc is perfectly OK? You think all the hate speech, racism, sexism, radicalization, outright illegal shit, attention-whoring, and pointless negative bullshit that is rampant on the Internet in general, is perfectly OK? You have no problems with it? Seriously: The signal-to-noise ratio on the Internet in general is practically down in the noise floor. There's a difference between 'expressing your opinion', 'discussing differing viewpoints', and the bullshit I've seen virtually every single day for the last 10 years or so, and it's getting worse, not better. People say and do shit on the Internet they'd never do or say in real life, because they know it's not acceptable behavior, but since they're nameless and faceless, there's no consequences.

You're either naive, or you're one of the trolls. Since you're posting as AC it's more likely the latter. Shoo.

Comment Re:We need better legislation (Score 3, Insightful) 102 102

At the rate this is going, drones available to the general public are going to become a quickly-disappearing fad, as they become outlawed entirely, and you can thank idiots like this Yan Yungfan, and all the idiots here in the U.S. who are getting their toys in the way of wildfire fighters' aircraft, idiots flying them into other restricted airspace (e.g., the White House and environs) and other idiots I'm not aware of, who either aren't capable of being responsible, or can't be bothered to be responsible with their toys.

Comment Re:Where have all the Slashdotters gone? (Score 3, Interesting) 59 59

Friend, the problem isn't Slashdot, the problem is the Internet in general. It's full of spam, and trolls, and useless shit. It had great potential when it was first opened up to the public, but as with all things in life, the best way to ruin a good thing is to get too many people involved with it. Is it the ultimate platform for enabling free speech? Yes. Does it allow free speech in a totally anonymous manner? Yes. Has it been completely and totally abused? Yes. Has it been corrupted by shitty people? Absolutely. Can it be saved? I think that horse has already left the barn. As-is, the Internet is only good for buying things, some basic research of whatever subjects (i.e. use it as an encyclopedia), and maybe email, that last only if you're willing to put up with all the spam. Otherwise it's turned into the equivalent of an unmanaged cesspool. I'd almost wish it would go back to being accessible only by Universities, the government, and the military.

Comment Re:"No steering column" (Score 1) 252 252

I've looked at the last hundred or so of the comments you've posted on various subjects, and it's fairly obvious you're just another one of those people who like to stir shit up and argue for no reason other than to stir shit up and argue, so I'm going to ignore you; shoo, troll, shoo. Go find some other way to feel relevant, OK? Go do work for a local charity or something, I guarantee you it'll make you feel better about yourself and your life than being a PITA on the Internet.

Comment Re:"No steering column" (Score 1) 252 252

I think you're taking for granted what it is you're driving right now. There are mechanical linkages between the steering wheel and the actual steering mechanism that turns the front wheels, and a mechanical/hydraulic linkage between the brake pedal and the actual slave cylinders that stop the wheels, and the reason they're there is NOT because of cost, it's because of safety: If all the electronic systems fail, for whatever reason, you can still control the vehicle and prevent an accident from occurring. THAT is why there will always be a full set of manual controls, and why you'll always have to be trained, tested, licensed, and insured, in order to operate a motor vehicle: Because you will will always be required to take control from any automated system at any time for safety reasons. Vehicles are designed the way they are with safety in mind, and your 'convenience' secondary, and so long as human lives are part of the equation, that will always be the case.

By the way, if you think I just 'don't understand technology' or something like that, maybe you should understand me before you make that sort of judgement: I've worked in computers and electronics for 35 years, have some engineering background, and have repaired my own cars, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, and whatnot that entire time; I spent more time under my first car than I spent driving it, because my dad was cheap and we bought a car that needed work done to it before I could even start driving it. I've been a 'Maker of Things'. I've written my own software. I am not a Luddite by any stretch of the imagination. I understand how vehicles are designed and why they're designed that way. That's why I know that there will always be manual controls and you'll always be required to be proficient at manually operating a motor vehicle, and the people whose job it is to ensure that there are laws in place to protect the public agree with me. Additionally, I've never encountered anyone IRL who wants a vehicle with no manual controls.

Comment Re:Republicans have always said... (Score 5, Insightful) 292 292

If this was 20 years ago, I wouldn't bat an eye at the idea that the Government would need to charge for their 'annotated' copy of the laws -- because it would have to be physically printed in paper books. But this isn't 20 years ago, this is 2015, and we have these convenient, near-magical devices called computers, and more to the point, .pdf files, which make the cost of 'publishing' such a reference work near zero, and the cost of updating it also, relatively speaking, near zero. To claim anything else in this day and age is just bald-faced profiteering. Get correct, Government.

The tree of research must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of bean counters. -- Alan Kay

Working...