Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:Yeah the FCC is stifling freedom! (Score 1) 377

what I find funny is that here some people are unhappy. Make up your mind slashdot, you finally got what you wan

Nobody changed their mind; the Slashdotters who wanted ISPs to be common carriers a decade ago still do. It's an entirely different set of users [industry shills and teabagging nutjobs] that have come out of the woodwork to bitch and moan now.

Comment: Re:Sheesh (Score 1) 377

The libertarian solution would outright abolish such government-enforced monopolies.

The libertarian solution would have Comcast and all other utilities pay every property owner for permission to run lines through their property (which is clearly unworkable -- if a single property owner at the entrance of a street refuses, everybody else on the street would be screwed). That's why even people who normally lean libertarian (such as the GP) realize that government regulation is a better alternative in this case.

Comment: Re:Another piece of software to uninstall (Score 1) 169

by mrchaotica (#49199017) Attached to: uTorrent Quietly Installs Cryptocurrency Miner

If only we have software that we could trust, that we could see the code.

That's necessary, but not sufficient. Even Free Software can get bundled with malware if you don't obtain it from a reputable source (e.g., the first-party website or your Linux distro's package management tool). Even previously-reputable download sites like Sourceforge have been guilty of bundling shit.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 487

by mrchaotica (#49196555) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

As to evidence, no one is asking for what you're saying they're asking for.

1. What is being asked for is that a study be reproducible.

2. That the data a study is based on be available for audit.

That's it.

No, you're wrong.

1. The kind of studies Republicans want to be "reproducible" are ones which are based on analysis of historical record, and "reproducing" historical record is fundamentally impossible. Reproducing the analysis using the same historical data is possible and is already done, but that's not good enough for them.

Since when have the data the studies are based on not been available for audit? As far as I can tell, you're making that accusation up out of whole cloth.

A corporation is property. Like your house. I don't get to bulldoze your house because "science"... I have to explain what law I'm doing it under and then I need to justify that. And I don't get to bulldoze your house before you can even defend yourself. You can't just say that no government policy can be subjected to challenge until they've actually done it. Would it be reasonable for me to say you can't complain about me bulldozing your house until AFTER I've done it? So If you know I'm going to do it, if I've got the bulldozer right there, and I'm just waiting for the moment when you're looking paying attention... you apparently have no right complain about what I will absolutely do the instant you turn your back? Get real.

That's a poor analogy. The real analogy is that you're wanting to build a new house (in a wetland, for the sake of argument), and trying to claim that the government should have no ability to protect the wetland by stopping you until after you've already destroyed it.

And that's all this bill is asking for, sport. Proper justification.

BULLSHIT! The EPA already requires "proper justification" in order to act! What these bills do is require impossible justification in a naked attempt to destroy the EPA entirely.

I'm so fucking dumb I'm really incapable of having this discussion.

FTFY. And I completely agree, so please feel free to fuck off.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 487

by mrchaotica (#49196073) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

You are quite clearly suggesting that the EPA should be able to operate without due process.

I am not. I am suggesting that the standard of evidence for EPA regulations should be "preponderance of evidence" (i.e., how issues are decided in civil cases) and not "proof" (similar to the standard for criminal cases) which would hamstring the EPA and cause harm by allowing industry to pollute with impunity because "proof" is impossible. The "preponderance of evidence" standard still counts as due process.

As to things being challengeable in court now, are they? Many government agencies have shown reluctance to provide evidence for their actions.

We're talking about the EPA. Has the EPA done that?

And really, you have no business enacting any policy on scientific grounds unless that science has been tested and the entirety of the study is open to public audit.

Okay, so what counts as "tested?" If "testing" requires waiting until the harm has already occurred and then saying "yep, there's the harm" then you can fuck right off because that's not reasonable. And that unreasonable standard is what the assholes pushing these bills want.

And saying this is all about "corporations" etc is complete tribalistic horseshit. You should be ashamed of yourself. Civil rights and civil rights indifferent to whomever they refer to. You're not going to tell me that people you don't like are not entitled to civil right are you?

Corporations are not people. And if you disagree, you can fuck right off about that too.

Corporations are property. And property is owned by people with rights.

And people give up some of those rights in return for the limited liability afforded by incorporation. You don't like it? Then don't fucking incorporate!

What, you thought incorporating was a "have your cake and eat it too" kind of situation, with no downside? That incorporating lets you reap all the benefits of your actions, while shedding all the responsibility for them? Well isn't that just a nice little pile of fascist horseshit.

Nobody's stopping anyone from forming (regular, i.e., not "limited") partnerships and exercising their civil rights all they want. Of course, if they don't want to do that because they're afraid of being held accountable for their sociopathic actions, then that's just too damn bad for them and I have no sympathy at all.

Comment: Re: I have said it before (Score 1) 376

by mrchaotica (#49195463) Attached to: French Nuclear Industry In Turmoil As Manufacturer Buckles

Sure! And it only took 10 seconds of Googling to find. This book chapter explains how public hysteria forced the NRC to repeatedly tighten regulations, which drastically increased costs not only due to the sheer increase in materials and increased labor to design things to comply (what the author calls "regulatory racheting"), but also the need to repeatedly re-engineer things as the regulations changed mid-construction (what the author calls "regulatory turbulence").

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 487

by mrchaotica (#49195403) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

You're assuming the government only does good things. The NSA actions alone render that position laughable.

Apparently, you fail to understand that the NSA and the EPA are different things. What does that say about your intelligence?

So your argument is a strawman where you suggest that expecting basic civil rights and due process means I want a corporate oligarchy to rule with impunity over everyone.

First, your statement is a strawman: I did NOT suggest that "expecting basic civil rights and due process means [you] want a corporate oligarchy!" I suggested that allowing corporations to dominate the EPA means you want a corporate oligarchy.

Second, these bills are absolutely not designed to preserve "due process." They just use Orwellian doublespeak to claim that while actually doing exactly the opposite. They are, in fact, designed to cause regulatory capture and therefore corporate oligarchic rule. That is their purpose.

Your claim that these bills uphold civil rights and due process, or that opposition to them is opposition to civil rights or due process, is a vicious lie!

Never mind that what I actually asked for was that the government present evidence for why it does things and be open to challenge in court.

Regulations can be challenged in court now; the only difference is that they currently aren't subject to prior restraint by corporations before the court cases are completed.

Now, go fuck yourself.

Comment: Re:Ah, come one, don't we trust the Feds? (Score 1) 88

Now ... imagine that there were at least three stories a day about people being killed by malfunctioning Toyotas and then we found out that Toyota was using its onboard electronics to record everything everybody who rides in them is saying, to be used against them in the future, and remotely detonating a few of them every few days. Most people still get from point A to point B, but still a bunch of people are getting killed because they own a Toyota.

A car analogy, eh? Alright then, try this one on for size:

Let's pretend the company in your analogy were Mitsubishi instead of Toyota. Mitsubishi is a huge conglomerate that makes bunches of different things; automobile manufacturing is only about 10% (by revenue) of what it does.

We'll continue to imagine that Mitsubishi Automotive is still doing all the nefarious things listed above -- being really, really pissed off at Mitsubishi Automotive would still be perfectly valid.

There's also a division of Mitsubishi that makes pharmaceuticals (Kyowa Kirin). Let's imagine for a moment that Kyowa Kirin does something really great -- maybe it makes revolutionary vaccines that cure all the worst diseases, and then distributes them worldwide for free, for example.

Would you also be justified in being pissed off at Kyowa Kirin for Mitsubishi Automotive's actions, even though Kyowa Kirin had no control over them and the work it was doing itself was valuable, just because they had the same corporate ownership? Of course not!

And condemning the FCC just because the US Marshals fucked up makes just as little sense.

Comment: Re:Is it better than Tom Clancy's Net Force? (Score 1) 140

by mrchaotica (#49190423) Attached to: A Critical Look At CSI: Cyber

I liked netforce series a lot. It was a cool idea of what-might-be and I really hope it materializes. The way I understood VR simulaitons is they were just UI, the semi-inteligent software was doing work. But instead of staring at a console as we do, he got to play interactive 'game'. Which is kinda cool when you think about it.

Remember that scene from Jurassic Park where the little girl said "It's a UNIX system! I know this!" and proceeded to ssslloooowwwlllyyy fix the system using FSN instead of a reasonable interface? That's how that VR shit would turn out if you actually tried to do it.

Having a computer is all about being able to use the right tool for the job... and VR is very rarely the right tool.

No line available at 300 baud.