Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:"to provide support for the cultural sector" (Score 1) 174

Rooms go quiet when you enter, people cross the street to avoid meeting you on the sidewalk then cross back after you've passed.

Ok, how do random people on the street tell that you're not a tourist and are there to stay, and more importantly how do they tell you're not a native Quebecoi?

Comment: Re:"to provide support for the cultural sector" (Score 1) 174

Taxis wont pick you up.

Ok, how exactly does a taxi driver look at you standing on the street and tell that you speak English instead of French? It's not like French people look significantly different from other white people (assuming you're white of course). (If you're not white, that's just plain ol' racism, not discrimination against non-French people. And it's not like all French speakers are white anyway; there's whole countries in Africa full of French speakers, plus lots of African-descent people in France.)

And why wouldn't you just learn French anyway?

Quebec is the only way for an English white person to get an idea what life was like for African Americans in the time immediately after emancipation.

It was like that for AAs all the way until the 1960s, and beyond in some places.

But you're still not making sense. How do people tell at a distance that you're a white native English speaker instead of a white native French speaker? French people do not look remarkably different from people of British or German ancestry, at least not enough to tell at a distance.

Comment: Re:"to provide support for the cultural sector" (Score 1) 174

BS, this is the exact same thing every libertarian regurgitates and it isn't true. What you're describing is the Articles of Confederation. Those were tossed out in the 1790s in favor of the Constitution, which provides a much stronger central government though still with some federalism. What you describe also isn't feasible at all with all the tiny states we have, some no bigger than Luxembourg (which itself saw the value of union and created a trade union with Belgium and Netherlands, called Benelux, back in the 70s). That's why I propose breaking North America up into only handful of new nations, somewhere between 5 and 12. Each would have about the population of a good-sized European nation like France or Spain, not too small (small countries have no power or clout on their own) and not too large (large nations get you all the problems we have now, too much infighting and too much corruption due to too much diversity and disagreement between the regions). Then, coordinating 10 or less countries together in a more-limited trade union isn't that big a task, unlike trying to get 50 little (and some big) states to agree on anything.

While we're at it, we should eliminate all the state lines (each of these nations would probably have ~5 states) and redraw them in a more sensible ways, to account for local cultures and values, instead of just drawing straight lines on a map arbitrarily. A series of referendum elections, allowing people (probably at the county level) to choose which state they want to be in would fix this.

Comment: Re: Centralized on GitHub! LOL! (Score 1) 82

Same is true for subversion. In both cases you can develop and test your code and review your changes against what was last seen original copy.

It's admittedly been a while since I last used SVN, but it was not at all like Git; it was entirely centralized and required server access to do almost anything. Not every developer has a full copy of the repo, as they do with Git. It was pretty slow when I used it too (though nothing like ClearCase).

With Git, you can check in changes, create branches, etc. all you want without needing any network access at all. You only need network access and server access when you want to share those changes with others. This just isn't possible in a centralized version control system.

Github changes git into centralized subversion-like system

No, it doesn't. It facilitates sharing between developers, and that's all. This is not like a centralized VCS, where you need server access to actually do version-control.

but if it is down, your cooperation workflow is going to suffer badly.

No, not really. The whole point to the GitHub (or similar) server is to provide a single point to facilitate sharing. Without it, you'll need to do pushes and pulls directly between developers' machines, which obviously is inefficient, but is doable. However, it's also trivial to switch to a new central server at any time: just stop using the old one, clone the latest version of the repo (which whoever last pushed to GitHub would have) to the new server, have everyone point to the new server, and you're done. That's something you can't easily do with a centralized VCS.

Comment: Re:"to provide support for the cultural sector" (Score 3, Insightful) 174

This is why both Canada and the US should be abolished as nations, and new (smaller) nations should be formed in their places. Quebec should be an independent country, the west coast should have its own country, the US northeast should be a country (perhaps combined with Canada's maritime provinces) the US southeast should be a separate country, etc. Then these new countries can form a trade union much like the EU, with a shared currency (maybe) and free trade between them, but still having a huge amount of autonomy so that each region can do its own thing, such as legalizing pot (as the PacNW wants to do), or banning pot and abortion (as the Dixie states want to do).

Comment: Re:I hate not being culture (Score 1) 174

Don't blame me, I never bought their crap or attended their shows. But yes, when you worship the "Free market", you get low-forehead crap like Nickelback, Britney Spears, Justin Bieber, Honey Boo Boo, The Kardashians, and the various Hollywood trash movies, so we can thank the masses of our fellow citizens for that.

Comment: Re: Centralized on GitHub! LOL! (Score 3) 82

You really don't understand what decentralized version control is, do you?

The whole point isn't to avoid any centralization at all, it's that you're not utterly reliant on it. It's somewhat similar to the argument between a big server and thin clients (where nearly all computation is on the server) and "thick clients" (PCs) and less-capable servers (for sharing files, etc.). With a big server, if that server goes down or the connection to it goes down, you're screwed, and can't do anything. With today's more common thick-client paradigm, if your office file server goes down, you can't easily share files with your coworkers and other things are inaccessible, but you can still get some work done using whatever local copies you have.

This is what DVCS is all about. With Git, you have a full copy of the repo just by virtue of having "checked out" a copy. You can still get some work done without access to the central server, whether it's down or your WiFi connection is down or your VPN is down. You can't do everything obviously, nor will you ever be able to, but that's not the point. And, in a worst-case scenario, if the central server just disappears one day without accessible backups, everyone with a copy checked out has the full repository, so it's possible to rebuild easily.

Comment: Re:Boorish (Score 1) 612

by Grishnakh (#49354983) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear

No, the main problem with American cars these days is build quality, just like always. UAW simply doesn't do as good a job as the non-union workers at the Japanese plants.

WTF are you talking about? All those workers at the Ford plants in Mexico are not part of UAW.

If I want a car assembled correctly, I buy one which was put together in Germany

You mean like all those VWs built in Mexico? You can probably get an Audi or Mercedes or BMW built in Germany, but if you're looking at something cheaper, it's made in Mexico.

Comment: Re:Paypal better pick what it wants to be... (Score 1) 66

by Grishnakh (#49354951) Attached to: PayPal To Pay $7.7 Million For Sanctions Violations

That really doesn't explain anything and just sounds like conspiracy theory talk. How exactly does PayPal not technically being a bank give them such an advantage? Finally, why is it such a problem for PayPal to not be a bank, but for places like and other credit-card processors it's OK? Also, I do believe Amazon Payments is doing something pretty similar to PayPal, and I never hear anyone complain that they're not a bank, nor did I ever hear anyone complain about Google Payments (which still exists BTW, but it's only used for buying stuff on the Google Play store now).

What banking regulations, exactly, are making it unprofitable for real banks? And what good are these regulations anyway? Why do we need these regulations? They sure didn't help prevent the whole 2008 financial disaster. In fact, after that disaster, the big banks all got free no-strings bailouts from the government. PayPal never got a bailout. So why are you acting like PayPal is somehow unethical and the banks aren't, when the banks are outright criminal?

Comment: Re:Paypal better pick what it wants to be... (Score 2) 66

by Grishnakh (#49350517) Attached to: PayPal To Pay $7.7 Million For Sanctions Violations

It's too bad no one else seems to be able to make a decent competitor to them. Citibank tried a while ago and threw in the towel, even Google tried and gave up too. It's a simple concept: make a payment-processing service which nearly anyone can sign up for, which can allow you to accept credit-card payments from others (without having to get a $$$ merchant account), which lets people send money to each other easily without gigantic wire-transfer fees, and which lets people transfer money in and out of it. Why aren't the big banks doing this? I guess because they can't tack on all kinds of horrendous fees and still get people to use it, and PayPal's business model isn't profitable enough for them.

Comment: Re:Safe from the bearded evil ones (Score 1) 707

by Grishnakh (#49350227) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident

Where? Unless you're like the other responder trying to paint our governments as "terrorists" (which has merit, I'll concede, but it's really beside the point, we're talking about non-state actors here), I can't think of very many still operating. The IRA in Ireland really isn't a problem any more (I haven't heard of any car bombings there in ages), the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka seem to have gone away (plus, they were highly focused, and only attacked targets in Sri Lanka or nearby southern India; they didn't run around hijacking airplanes all over the planet), and that's really all I can think of. All the other groups called terrorists by some government are Islamic.

There have been some lone-wolf nutjobs here and there, but it's inaccurate to call them "terrorists" IMO. Terrorists are people who are part of some kind of group which is pushing an ideology, and to further that goal use violent attacks to terrorize civilians in countries they have an issue with. Some lone nutjob shooting up a school is not part of a network of people. Even someone like Timothy McVeigh really wasn't a true terrorist, he had one buddy and decided to attack a government building because he was mad at the government for some reason. He wasn't part of any kind of organization with any socio-political goals. Same goes for the Unabomber, he was just a nutjob thinking he was making some kind of change by assassinating people through the mail. When you look at groups like the IRA, LTTE, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, etc., these are pretty large (relatively) organizations, with dozens or hundreds of members or more (ISIS has tens of thousands), clear leadership and structure, clear goals, etc. They aren't just some lone guy with mental problems who lives as a hermit. There's a really big difference.

Comment: Re:Lots of places have banned both babes already (Score 1) 309

by Grishnakh (#49349135) Attached to: RSA Conference Bans "Booth Babes"

Not everyone at a booth needs to know about the product. I was at a conference years ago where some network-security firm was hawking some box, and they had a huge booth with a tent where they had people come in and watch some little video-enhanced skit involving a dragon. They had a couple of booth babes somewhat scantily-clad, in keeping with the castles-and-dragons theme, but they were only really there to be ushers while people waited in line to go in and watch the next show. Ushers don't need to know anything about the product, they just tell people when they can go inside, where to stand in line, who to talk to if you have questions, etc.

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin