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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Sanders amazes me (Score 1) 344

by mi (#49606257) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

It's okay for global corporations to finance the election?

Your rhetorical question is the same as "is it Ok for child-molesters to roam the streets" — you need to seriously violate privacy rights of everybody to even learn, which money comes from "global corporation" or who is a known "sex offender".

And the answer to both questions is "Yes". You can ask a politician, who gave him money — and draw conclusions from answers or evasions — but you can not ban it outright. Certainly not according to Slashdot's prevailing opinion.

So universal health care is a bad thing?

It is certainly something USSR had — and it was as bad as the rest of what they had USSR.

Ultimately, it is unfair — a citizen pays taxes into the common pool, but, when he needs treatment, it is up to the pool's administrators to decide, what is and what is not "appropriate" treatment (or, maybe, he deserves only the end-of-life counselling). Sure, insurance companies have a very similar arrangement (except any of them would be torched to the ground for even mentioning EOL), but insurance companies compete with each other and people can switch between them as they see fit.

Didn't Romney try this somewhat in MA?

"Somewhat" is a qualifier, you can drive a truck through, is not it? Your question is irrelevant, though, and the answer is "No" — Romney did not introduce "Universal" healthcare in Massachusetts.

How about when a gay couple adopt children

Is a paraplegic being discriminated against, when he is told, he can not play volleyball or practice karate? If the law requires adoptions to favor married couples, then any unmarried couple is disqualified. It is not anybody's fault that (most) gays would not marry — any more than that the paraplegic can neither jump nor kick.

But "discrimination" it is not — and neither the gays' nor the paraplegics' predicament can be rectified by a politician or any legislation, only by, one hopes, some future medical breakthroughs.

Comment: "Stupid mistake"? (Re:Hahah) (Score 1) 175

The mistake reveals a stunning lack of morals

A 15 year-old man not only committed a serious crime (arson), he also tried to cheat — and not in a game, but in the most important (at his age) part of life. And that's age, when one is still supposed to venerate honor, integrity and honesty — even if many of us become more pessimistic about these values later in life. Didn't he just read Mark Twain? Heinlein may be despised by the modern teaching class — not the boy's fault — but Jack London ought to figure prominently on reading assignments...

Though he is hardly the only one such in the nation, I would not want him to some day win a public office, run a bank, or marry my daughter.

Comment: Re:"Tax the rich" canard (Score 1) 344

by mi (#49606035) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

This year's deficit is about $750 billion.

Your response might've been meaningful, if the 100% tax on "the rich" would have covered your figure. And not even then — the very fact that the numbers are comparable means, even flat-out confiscating all income from those earning $1mln is not enough. Oh, and you can only do that sort of things once (per generation) — may be enough for a one-time undertaking, but not for ongoing payments for all the wonder-programs Socialists dream about.

I think your emboldened quote is a little out of date.

Yes, had you clicked on the link provided, you would've seen the date on the article: 4/03/2012 @ 2:39PM: same President, same totalitarian "progressives", same debate as we have now.

Just what is it that drives people like you to these attempts to state the meaningless bits, that make not a iota of difference to the point being made, is beyond me...

Comment: Omissions are not discrimination (Score 1) 344

by mi (#49605959) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

Nope, there are hundreds, if not thousands of laws that single them out

Any claim of there being "thousands" of anything not accompanied by even one example is invalid. Fail.

There are piles of laws on housing and other things that state you can't discriminate [...] but very few of them extend anti-discrimination laws to LBGT

Oh, well, if we start counting omissions, we can get really far. There are no laws defending blonds or red-heads against discrimination by brunettes either. Can a politician proposing to ban discrimination based on hair-color to our thick books be confident of your vote?

How about folks, whose name begins with "Mi*"? There is not a law anywhere in the world (!) explicitly protecting us — how do you sleep at night knowing of this ongoing travesty?

Comment: "Tax the rich" canard (Score 0) 344

by mi (#49603513) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

Paying for them is a simple matter of raising taxes on wealthy people.

This idiocy has been proposed enough times someone has already done the calculations:

If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.

Comment: Re:Sanders amazes me (Score 1, Informative) 344

by mi (#49603495) Attached to: Bernie Sanders, Presidential Candidate and H-1B Skeptic

support for campaign finance transparency

Which can otherwise be described as ban on anonymous speech — at least, political speech.

opposition to concentrating media into a few corporations

We don't have a media monopoly, that's all that matters. Most likely, his being a Socialist, the solution will involve creating an official governmental media corporation (such as by vastly expanding NPR/PBS). USSR had such a monopoly on media, and now Russia has too. It is not pretty — and much worse, than what we have today.

support for universal health care

Well, GP said "soviet experiment" and you asked for examples — here is another one.

support for LGBT equality

They are perfectly equal already — there are no laws singling them out in any way.

opposition to the bank bail-outs when they were fast-tracked through in 2008

Yeah, right. Would he properly privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mark? Without dealing with that giant elephant in the room, all "banking reforms" are meaningless.

None of that seems all that crazy or dangerous to me

Then you have no idea, what "soviet experiment" is. Likely, Mr. Sanders does not know it either. Both of you should be kept away from governing a country.

Comment: Re:If you didn't sing it... (Score 1) 222

by mi (#49602093) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down

If a person makes a house and sells it, then it is no longer theirs to sell

Sure, but what if he rents it out? A song is rarely sold — what you buy is a right to play it with certain limitations. Since you are compelled by neither the law nor even physical necessity to enter into the transaction in the first place, I fail to see, what right you have to even complain of any and all strings attached. If you don't, how the "infamous" Metallica sells their music, take your money to YouTube. Problem solved.

Code licensing should also not be perpetual

There you go. Glad we cleared that out. Neither of us is an artist, but at least one is a programmer — kind of brings the topic closer to home. So, in your opinion, software-licensing — include what's licensed under GPL — should not be perpetual. I think, we are done here.

I'm not advocating for the elimination of copyright - just shortening it to a reasonable period.

All of the arguments you've put forth so far in support of shortening the copyright, would apply equally to eliminating it altogether. Therefor either the arguments are BS, or you ought to embrace the greater cause and stop being shy about it.

Comment: Re:If you didn't sing it... (Score 1) 222

by mi (#49599069) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down

It's sort of an odd arrangement that we provide them a government mandated monopoly over their songs essentially forever.

Why? What's "odd" about it? If you build — or purchase — a house, you and your ancestors can live in it forever. Why must a song be ever confiscated from its owner?

How about a program you write — and release under, say, GPL? Should that licensing be perpetual, or do you consider that to be "abusive" as well — and would like all software to automatically become public domain after a (short) while?

Due to abusive legislation, that has been stolen from us

So, we can use the term "stolen", when referring to intangible things, after all? Good to know...

Most artists make music because they like it. YouTube is full of artists sharing their works for free.

You are right! Under the current system an artist is free to release their works "into the wild" whenever they please. They have a choice between trying to profit and trying to gain renown. You want to take that away (steal) from them, mandating some arbitrary (and short) time limit. I fail to see, how this can possibly be considered "fair".

They wouldn't suffer with shorter copyright

But others would suffer from the confiscation you are proposing. So, if you dislike them so much — just pretend they don't exist and enjoy the works of those you like.

Comment: Re:Interesting, but... (Score 1) 8

by mi (#49599037) Attached to: Cease and Desist Notice - Neuoogle

You say it is perfectly obvious I picked the name of the app because of it's similarities to Google. Can you prove this or is this simply your conjecture?

Yes, it is my conjecture, that the stated fact is perfectly obvious.

No, I am not going to "prove" it — if such was a requirement for trademark cases, no plaintiff would've ever won anything. But you seem to be confusing "facts" with "proven facts" — though the distinction exists in courts of law, in the court of public opinion (which is where you are right now, by your own choice) it is far less pronounced.

Now, would you state publicly and sincerely, that I am wrong, and that your choice of name Neu oogle for a web-search application had nothing whatsoever to do with G oogle? And still respect yourself in the morning?

Google need to prove I was trying to pass it off, not simply believe I was.

Actually, no. As far as I understand, Google does not need to prove, what was going on in your head at all. They just need to demonstrate, that a reasonable person may be genuinely confused into thinking, your app really had something to do with or was endorsed by Google. And that such a confusion is easily possible is really quite obvious.

+ - NASAs EM Drive Tested Again In A Vacuum - It still works->

Submitted by techfun89
techfun89 writes: A revolutionary new space engine technology with the potential to make a trip to Mars in 10 weeks has been in the works by NASA the concept has been tested again. The last series of tests were done months ago and this time they have used a vacuum to test how it might behave in space.

Testing inside the vacuum allowed NASA to rule out the potential that the thrust was being created by head transfer from the outside, rather than from within the drive. The engine is supposed to work by generating force from the bouncing of electromagnetic waves inside a chamber, with some of that energy being transferred to a reflector to generate thrust. They insist that there is not a violation of the conservation of momentum.

This technology has the potential to one day send astronauts to Mars in as little as 10 weeks and beyond.

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Not sure, if this is much better (Score 3, Insightful) 119

If they need a warrant (from the FISA court) to access the data (just like previously)

Well, if you put the "just like previously" part into your own post, then we aren't disagreeing, that this is not much of an improvement — and that was my premise.

That agreement now established, let's move on to what's wrong with the existing Act — and what's likely to remain wrong even after the proposed amendments are passed...

And the problem with FISA-court is that — unlike all other courts — it does not hear both sides . They may deny the rubber-stamp allegations, but they have only rejected 11 surveillance requests out of 33900 submitted since the court's inception to 2013...

how is it not abiding by the fourth amendment?

I said nothing about the Forth Amendment, actually. Whether it even applies to one's communications is no immediately obvious. No, my claim is not whether Patriot Act violates the Constitution, but whether or not the upcoming changes to it constitute a discernible improvement.

Would you prefer that law enforcement/spy agencies had to be fully tied and unable to conduct investigations?

I would prefer, that the government had no way to force private companies to preemptively record data about me just in case it may be needed by some future investigation.

Without being so forced, some companies may still prefer to do it seeking your business and others may choose not to seeking that of libertines. The existing regulatory mandate — cooperate with the FBI or else — troubles me greatly, and should trouble everyone...

Comment: Re:If you didn't sing it... (Score 1) 222

by mi (#49593949) Attached to: Grooveshark Shuts Down

they want to listen to music. hardly a grave moral transgression

I said nothing about listening. I wrote only about playing.

is it written somewhere in the bible or the quran that making money off of recorded music is some sort of basic human right? no

If the 10 Commandments were the sort of "living and breathing document", that certain people claim the US Constitution to be, the "Thou shalt not play records without recorder's permissions" would've been in it by now.

you make money form live performance, patronage, ads, ancillary revenue, etc.

Why must an artist's (or, indeed, anyone's!) money-making be restricted to the sources you find agreeable? And what of others of your kind, who'll claim, for example:

  • that mixing ads with art iis wrong,
  • or that patronage is immoral,
  • or that live performance is insufficiently egalitarian?

We are paying people for their utilizing their skills in the way we like. If Elon Musk can profit from designing a wonder battery in different ways, why can't a singer squeeze everything from a successful song?

If the artist didn't exist, you would've had no song and nothing to complain about. If does exist, but you don't like him or his desire to be paid — well, just ignore him, as if he didn't exist. Problem solved.

the words you say are in defense of a temporary power arrangement, physical media

Which words of mine do you consider relating to any particular "physical media"? I certainly meant no such relationship — the only presumption in my post was that a verbatim recording of musical performance is possible. Whether the recording is on a tape, CD, a flash-drive or whatever is of no consequence.

+ - OpenBSD 5.7 Released

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: Just as per the schedule, OpenBSD 5.7 was released today, May 1, 2015. The theme of the 5.7 release is "Source Fish". There are some big changes in OpenBSD 5.7. The nginx httpd server removed from base in favor of an internally developed httpd server in 5.7. BIND (named) from base in 5.7 in favor of nsd(8) (authoritative DNS) and unbound(8) (recursive resolver). Packages will exist for BIND and nginx. This version include a new control utility, rcctl(8), for managing daemons/services, USB 3 support and more. See a detailed log of changes between the 5.6 and 5.7 releases for more information. If you already have an OpenBSD 5.6 system, and do not want to reinstall, upgrade instructions and advice can be found in the Upgrade Guide. You can order the 5.7 CD set from the new OpenBSD Store and support the project.

Comment: Re: Sure, replicability is the problem... (Score 1) 172

So, are all you skeptics paid shills, or just really passionate about your cause?

I, for one, am rather passionate about some odd numbers not being primes.

That there is an infinite amount of them strengthens my position, but having only a few exceptions is enough to invalidate the theory I cited as an example.

Comment: Not sure, if this is much better (Score 5, Informative) 119

"The bill ends bulk collection, it ends secret law," says Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the original author of the Patriot Act who has now helped author the Freedom Act.

Well, according to New York Times:

Under the bipartisan bills in the House and Senate, the Patriot Act would be changed to prohibit bulk collection, and sweeps that had operated under the guise of so-called National Security Letters issued by the F.B.I. would end. The data would instead be stored by the phone companies themselves [emphasis mine -mi], and could be accessed by intelligence agencies only after approval of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court.

I'm not sure, we gained all that much here...

The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Paul Erlich