Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:I am not able to find that disproof (Score 1) 270 270

I noticed the same thing. Everything I've seen on monkey typists says that as either the number of monkeys, or the time, approaches infinity, the probability of getting a target string out of the typing pool approaches 1.

I also find it funny that in a post about a book on the Iraq debacle, the /. audience focuses on a tangential statement about probabilistics.

Comment: Re:So... (Score 1) 676 676

We already know that the gop thinks that they own us and will sell us down the river if their corporate sponsors believe that it will save them a few buck

Do you honestly think any democrat is better? Look where all the Wall Street campaign donations are going. In 2012, most went to the democrats. Do you think they did that because the democrats were going to rein in corporate malfeasance? Or maybe because the Obama administration and democratic leadership are a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs?

Comment: Re:Cody, just stop. (Score 3, Insightful) 449 449

You might think it's safe to say that, but it's completely wrong.

The number of guns in private hands in the US has doubled since the early 1990s. Yet the number of deaths (accidental or criminal) has plummeted, and the number of shootings (accidental or criminal) has plummeted as well. We have safer guns, and better gun education.

Comment: Re:No thanks (Score 3, Insightful) 449 449

Ask the Canadians how many times they used their gun registry to successfully trace a gun used in a crime (hint: it's zero, that's why the provinces are trying to get out of it).

Gun registries and serial numbers aren't for preventing, or even investigating, crime. They're for tracking down guns, when the government decides the guns are a threat to its power.

Comment: Re:1st Amendment (Score 4, Informative) 449 449

The First Amendment doesn't allow anything. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment), it guarantees government cannot interfere with rights that preexist government.

But yes, that would be a protected publication. He never challenged it. The designs were already out there (so he won), and it would have been expensive. I believe they used the same ITAR crap that used to prevent us from exporting encryption. But the courts ruled there that printed copies of encryption algorithms are protected expression, so this should be as well. More importantly, the Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority over publishing firearms plans.

And finally, when have you ever known the federal government to abide by the Constitution?

Comment: Re:I'm mad at him (Score 1) 449 449

It's more like if newspaper (I assume you mean the printing press) was just invented, and he showed people how they can print essays that challenge the government's monopoly on power.

This device shows the government that they can't maintain the absolute control they want to. So either they get even more totalitarian (and we overthrow them with our 300,000,000+ guns), or they scale it back (and we win peacefully).

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?