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


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:Alamo Broadband's complaint (Score 1) 316

by meustrus (#49367589) Attached to: First Lawsuits Challenging FCC's New Net Neutrality Rules Arrive

You don't know what I did or did not protest in the past. You just want to paint me as a party shill and that's a problem. Can we stop pretending everyone against us is a shill for the other party? Policymaking needs to be more nuanced than that. I think the appalling voter turnout rates in recent elections show that the majority of the country doesn't agree with either side and feels powerless to effect the change they would like to see.

For the record I support overhauling filibuster rules to prevent their abuse. The cat's out of the bag and I don't want to see Democrats do it any more than I wanted Republicans to.

Comment: Re:Alamo Broadband's complaint (Score 1) 316

by meustrus (#49335385) Attached to: First Lawsuits Challenging FCC's New Net Neutrality Rules Arrive

Yeah, no. The Democrats in the Senate can still pull all the same shit the Republicans had been pulling for the last 4 years, and you know they will before it even gets to Obama's desk.

But there is something fundamentally frightening about your statement. Are you saying that our government can only get anything done when it's controlled by one side? That's not the way it's worked over 90% of the last 200+ years. We have always had divided government and managed to get things done. Great things even. Good governance demands a divided legislature finding middle ground, not supermajorities and the kind of destructive partisan brinksmanship we're engaged in right now.

The problem is not the balance of power between Democrats and Republicans. It's that both sides have become increasingly radical, uncompromising, corrupt, and as we have seen lately with the whole Hyde amendment thing, unimaginably lazy.

Comment: Re:May you choke on your own words (Score 1) 316

by meustrus (#49328615) Attached to: First Lawsuits Challenging FCC's New Net Neutrality Rules Arrive
Yeah, mission accomplished and then the anti-government people took the money away. And despite not going to the moon, we've launched a huge network of geographical positioning satellites (GPS), built a space station in an international collaboration of unprecedented scale, and made near-Earth orbit cheap enough for private industry to achieve it regularly. Even without those undeniable achievements, the money spent on NASA space programs has yielded huge dividends in publicly available inventions, engineering expertise in the market, and motivation for our children to be smarter and better than they might otherwise be without such an undeniably awe-inspiring positive influence. Everywhere you look the money spent on NASA has paid off hugely for society, despite constant threats to their budget and cuts to their most ambitious projects. They went to the moon. Imagine what they could do if we still funded them as much as we did in the 60s.

Comment: Re:Randian Dumbfuckery (Score 1) 316

by meustrus (#49328449) Attached to: First Lawsuits Challenging FCC's New Net Neutrality Rules Arrive

Long before seatbelts were mandatory for consumers to wear, they were made mandatory for manufacturers to provide. Even now they are not mandatory to wear in many states. But without government intervention the auto manufacturers may never have provided seatbelts, which have dramatically improved survival rates of accidents. Even though it turns out that consumers really do care about safety.

Sometimes a corporation is too big for any individual's purchasing power to have much influence. Often the individual has many concerns other than the safety of their transportation and just hasn't heard anything about it and so won't exert any purchasing power for their own good anyway. The only way to improve these sorts of situations is for consumers to band together and demand change as a group. They have a name for citizens banding together and making demands. It's called government.

Comment: Hyped marketing (Score 3, Interesting) 126

by meustrus (#49323289) Attached to: Boeing Patents <em>Star Wars</em> Style Force Field Technology

This is Sci-Fi because somebody in marketing thought they could get more buzz if they called it that. It deflects shockwaves, not projectiles. Then again who knows; maybe the blasters in Star Wars just make photon shockwaves? But this just looks like trademark infringement to me.

The sad thing is their clickbait worked. But a shockwave deflector shield is pretty neat tech anyway.

Comment: Re:Why not a Mac? (Score 1) 385

by meustrus (#49287067) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Choosing a Laptop To Support Physics Research?
You used to be able to upgrade the storage and the RAM pre-Retina. Now the RAM is soldered into the motherboard and the storage is a PCI Express-based (SATA-based in 2012-2013) chip in a proprietary socket. Also, now the battery is a series of bare cells held in place with very strong adhesive, and everything is locked away by pentalobe screws. Easy to repair it certainly is not.

Comment: Re: No it doesn't. (Score 1) 609

by meustrus (#49236245) Attached to: Clinton Regrets, But Defends, Use of Family Email Server

The argument isn't stupid. It's actually an ad hominem. I wouldn't normally support ad hominem arguments, but in this case it's not just attacking the credibility of the other party. It's attacking the credibility of all the party shills jumping on the "Clinton is evil" bandwagon. It's arguing against certain readers in particular for being OK with it when their side did it but not OK with it now. Myself, I don't even remember this Bush "scandal".

If you thought Bush was bad and you think this is bad, that's fine. If you don't care about either, that's OK too. If you only care about one and not the other, that's hypocritical. Let's not talk hypotheticals or generalizations. Cahuenga wasn't picking sides; s/he was mainly pointing out that it's too late to worry about the other side doing it once it's OK because they already have. Nobody should be but can we stop acting so surprised and outraged that it did? Focus on the future in which Clinton's emails are unprecedentedly available to the public (not just by FOIA or subpoena like normal) and she doesn't do this anymore. I'd like to think that future includes nobody doing it again but no amount of fake outrage is going to make that happen anyway.

And if your outrage is genuine, well power to you but you are in a vanishingly small minority lost in a sea of party shills ready to attack Clinton for anything and everything

Comment: Re: No it doesn't. (Score 1) 609

by meustrus (#49236165) Attached to: Clinton Regrets, But Defends, Use of Family Email Server

Don't call me a party loyalist. I don't really like Clinton. I just find this whole thing ridiculous.

All politicians are hypocrites regardless of this situation. The attackers I'm talking about are the media circus happening over this manufactured scandal. Then all the Twitterati and the rest of social media that has just made media circuses worse as they've grown in presence. I don't expect politicians to do any better than attack their opponents for whatever stupid reason they've got this week. But I would hope that the rest of us would stop acting like the only reason to use a private email account instead of a work email account is to hide something. We all know somebody that ignores the rules (or has tried to and been told to stop).

How can you work when the system's so crowded?