Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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: Circle of life... (Score 5, Insightful) 84

by loony (#48790711) Attached to: KDE Frameworks 5.3 and Plasma 2.1 – First Impressions

Not quite the typical 3 step list leading to profit, but here it goes:

1. Developer: This is so cluttered and ugly. Nobody needs all these features. Lets get rid of the old and do something new - it will be clean, pretty and well designed.
2. User: But now I can't do xxxxx - this sucks! You are idiots!
3. Developer: Ok, We'll add this back in.
4. User: Ok, better. Can you add yyyyy too?
5. Developer: Sure. And how about feature zzzzz as well?
6. User: Awesome. Its finally usable.
7: New Developer: This is so cluttered and ugly. Nobody needs all these features. Lets get rid of the old and do something new - it will be clean, pretty and well designed.

So sorry if I don't get too excited...


Comment: And this is how perverted our system has gotten... (Score 1, Insightful) 436

by loony (#48491419) Attached to: Supreme Court To Decide Whether Rap Lyric Threats Are Free Speech

I don't even know where to start with this one... The first amendment - like anything written in the Constitution is absolute. It has to be. If it weren't then we could all ignore any law we choose and even ignore rulings of the Supreme Court because their powers are based on the same document. So either the Constitution is absolute or it is not - but you can't have it both ways.

However, even with that I don't see how it matters... The bill of rights is supposed to keep us from the Federal Government taking too many rights and amassing too much power (and in doing so has given the federal government way too much power - just as the opponents of the bill of rights originally feared). It should have absolutely no influence in a court case between two individuals.


Comment: Re:My opinion on the matter. (Score 4, Insightful) 826

by loony (#47750411) Attached to: Choose Your Side On the Linux Divide

Who cares if you have to relearn stuff? Its the fact that systemd is less than stable... In many cases, you end up with corrupt binary log file after a crash, have services that don't (run a process that does heavy syslogging to the tune of 25-30K messages per second. Yes, its bad app design but come on - this thing worked for years and now its suddenly broken???) that used to work just fine before and then top it off with really braindead configuration options (go ahead and change the pgsql listen port - and see how long it takes you...)

I'm all for systemd - once its been stable for a while, but till then it would be nice to have at least a choice...


Comment: Re:I DON'T CARE! (Score 1) 245

Yes, you're partially right on that but in my opinion there are enough other incidents that can yield data - missing one is really not that major.
Also, if you listen to the news casters and articles written, they all at least pretend its about the human factor, not about analyzing the wreckage to see what caused the issue so we can prevent it in the future...


Comment: I DON'T CARE! (Score 3, Interesting) 245

40K people die every day of hunger and the while the USD 60M or more that were spent so far on this stupid search couldn't have prevented that, it would have helped a lot of people have another chance.

Either you say you care about the lives of people and then you just shake your head about this pointless waste of money or you don't care and then you wouldn't care about ML370 either. But you unless you're related or friends of anyone onboard that flight, you're just a for caring about the lives lost there and not about the people that die every day of hunger, war, and such...


Comment: Re:That's only what we know yet (Score 3, Insightful) 97

by loony (#46965349) Attached to: The NSA and Snowden: Securing the All-Seeing Eye

Its too easy for people to trust the government. They promise to take care of you, keep you safe and fed and all the other things. Its easier to trust them than to have a mind on your own, to have to think, plan, and work. It usually all goes well for a while until corruption creeps in and politicians think they know better than you how you should live your life...

The US had an amazing run and I wish I could somehow know what future generations will define as the point in time where the US government turned sour. The current NSA affair? What about the creating of a for-profit, private bank that's put in charge of ruining the dollar value? I'm sure some racists will point to the 13th amendment but I bet 9/11 would be a much more likely choice. Maybe the Nixon years with Watergate and the removal of the gold standard? Oh so many choices... I personally pick the day the southern states seceded. While the North was right and slavery had to go, I still can't find a legal reason that prohibited the South to withdraw from the United States...


Comment: The sidebar was the most interesting part... (Score 4, Insightful) 97

by loony (#46965085) Attached to: The NSA and Snowden: Securing the All-Seeing Eye

I started reading but soon moved on to just skimming the article. It read like a very logical but basic security primer... Until I hit the sidebar. Wow, I've never seen a better laid out, yet brief, history lesson that got straight to the point. Our government needs to remember that its "For the People, by the People" not "For those people, by these people"


Comment: Re:Not so fast, cowboy ... (Score 1) 723

by loony (#46717557) Attached to: Can the ObamaCare Enrollment Numbers Be Believed?

The Supreme Court's decision in this case is irrelevant for two reasons - of course both have been invalidated many times over in the SC's typical, self-serving stance.

1) The government is limited to what is spelled out in the Constitution as the government's powers and NOT that it can do whatever as long as it doesn't infringe the amendments. This is why the bill of rights was the biggest mistake - it gives the Constitution the appearance that the government can do way more than it was ever intended to.

2) The SC has decided that what is written in the constitution is no absolute but relative. Therefore the SC's own power - which is based on the Constitution - is relative and not absolute. I can therefore elect which of its decisions apply to me and which ones don't. Sounds fair, right?


Comment: What's the big deal? (Score 1, Insightful) 310

by loony (#46413813) Attached to: Facebook Wants To Block Illegal Gun Sales

They are a private company and can (or should be) allowed to impose whatever rules they want... Its only the federal government that is required to adhere to the bill of rights. So until the Constitution gets amended, we can argue about how illegal background checks, waiting periods, and registration by the federal government are - but there is absolutely nothing you can say about FB doing whatever they feel is right.


"The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." -- Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards