Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 1) 316

What would be nice is our representatives only being on committees where they could prove they were competant on the subject matter.

Prove to who, by what standards? Maybe a legislator should be good at understanding the constitution, the wheels of policy making, the nature of government finance, etc., and then do what committees do ... bring in experts to testify so they'll hear from experts who specialize in the subject matter. An elected representative is supposed to be an expert at being a legislator. Expecting them to be fully formed IT experts or doctorate level virologists or masters of manufacturing processes is completely missing the point.

Comment Re:A remarkable number of people are idiots (Score 5, Funny) 316

This is why I'm seriously advocating that the weight of one's vote should be proportional to his knowledge + intelligent.

Does that mean that my vote will count more than yours, because I know the difference between "intelligent" and "intelligence?"

Be careful how you tell other people to measure things.

Comment Re:same as guns (Score 1) 174

No I think mostly only the police should be allowed to own guns. Security people should not, if they need guns for something they should call the police.

LOL. Okay, dude. You're naive, at best. You trust the police? Apparently you haven't been paying attention lately. The police, who are now using military surplus on people in the streets, that are never held accountable for excessive use of force? The police, which the courts have already established have NO obligation to protect anyone?

Here's a clue for you: this will never happen. Banning guns starts with the debate on who will actually have a monopoly on having guns. It will NOT be "just the police". There are many armed bureaucracies that will NOT give up their guns. The FBI and everyone under Homeland Security, sure. But also the Department of Education (did you know they have their own SWAT squads?), HUD, Health and Human Services, the Department of Agriculture (which also has their own SWAT teams, they use them for raiding illegal raw milk producing farmers, among other things), the State Department (of course), and Commerce (yep, armed). There are numerous state bureaucracies that also have armed teams, including Alcohol bureaus and DMVs. All these folks will NOT be willing to give up guns.

Most private security companies are run and often staffed by military veterans and retired police, and none of them are going to give up their guns. And the wealthy and the elites that hire them will make sure they never have to. Because, yes, your rulers do not want you to have guns, and that's the rulers in government and the rulers not in government. Do you think the banks are going to go along with having their money and assets transported around by unarmed guards? Your government cannot function without the banks, there is no way they will disarm the banks and their security folks. You're going to tell them "Well just call the cops." Good luck.

Of course, we're just getting started. There will be MANY groups clamoring to be part of the monopoly-allowed-to-have-guns, many of them with money and influence, not to mention the weapons manufacturers themselves. One of the few productive exports the US has left is weapons - you think they will give that up? Oh, then you get to try to figure out HOW those powerless, not wealthy, and non influential people will be disarmed, and WHO is going to disarm them. Break out the popcorn - it's going to be fun.

Comment Re:same as guns (Score 1) 174

Drugs are not the same as guns. You don't get physically addicted to guns. You are comparing apples and oranges.

You said banning guns would be easier than encryption because guns are physical objects. When I pointed out drugs are physical objects, too, and bans fail, you move the goal post. So... you think the only people using illegal drugs are physically addicted?

I assume you, like most people, don't really want to ban guns, but just provide certain people with a monopoly on using them. More people have been killed by their own government than by any other cause.

Comment Re:None of the people I know that Like this Show.. (Score 1) 389

If you don't have a piece of broken... something... that you've been tinkering with on and off for years, which you could easily replace with a raspberry pi and some custom software/hardware, you probably aren't a geek either.

Not all of us can read x86 assembly code in hex, but a lot of people can. Some of us can even read M68k asm in hex, but it's harder.

Those people, at least, are geeks.

The last time I heard of a "chicken eating geek" was in an Alice Cooper song... lol.

Hacking is a lifestyle, it has some things to do with code, but it's mostly problem solving.

Windows is a tool, just like most things; if you're using them right.

But a geek would know that.

Comment Re:That's not the answer! (Score 1) 226

(Nevertheless, taking "clear images" from 300m away from a shaky drone is pretty tricky; image stabilization is not that good.)

Have you tried any of the ones with a gimbal? I don't know about using a zoom lens, I don't have one, but I have used OOTB DJI Phantom Vision II v3 and it's pretty amazingly stable in the pictures or video. As stable as I can get holding a camera anyway.

Comment Re:That's not the answer! (Score 1) 226

I thought about it, then realized it was a pretty stupid idea, at least with current law and even somewhat affordable drones (DJI phantoms).

Then again, it's more curiosity like what's behind their house etc. And probably crosses some line, but I'm not about to set up some sort regular overflights. I mostly fly over my own property, or places where I've gotten permission by the property owner. I also stay below 400ft by settings in the software. I don't want to impinge on any manned aircraft.


Comment Re: Why? (Score 1) 447

To establish that fact, you'd have to engage in a psychological examination of the criminals.

No, you would not. Because the evidence is simple. The vast majority of the types of murders we're talking about are conducted by people illegally owning guns, most of which are stolen or otherwise illegally in possession of the person doing the deed. If criminals cared about illegally possessing guns, that simple fact wouldn't be true. There's no need for hand-wringing psychoanalysis ... just open your eyes.

This sentence, your basically saying solving the problem solves the problem.

No, I'm saying that solving the crime problem happens to solve the CRIME WITH GUNS problem. But the gun control think (or pretend to) that guns CAUSE the crime. I'm pointing out that they're being completely disingenuous, because they know that the problem is crime, not guns. They don't want to confront the human behavior part, because that means being judgmental about other people (and statistically, being judgmental especially about poor people and minorities) that are involved in most of that crime. Because that's the third rail of political correctness, they lazily pretend that controlling the guns that non-criminals might purchase will make crime go away so they don't have to confront the real problem: local culture.

And yet that is a contention that hasn't been proven, actually.

That's why you can't make any assertions about local gun laws, as the effect of local gun laws on the availability of guns has not been demonstrated.

It doesn't NEED to be. Unless you're suggesting that gun control laws make guns MORE available in the areas where they are used frequently in crimes. Is that really your contention? Otherwise guns are uniformly available across the country, but at least somewhat less so in areas like Chicago because of the draconian laws (which is why people who wanted to own them for self defense in their homes there had to take the matter to court).

First you have to reduce the supply of guns, then you can see what impact it has on the crime levels.

Why? We already see that crime level are much, much lower in most areas where guns are readily available. Guns are harder to legally purchase in Chicago, where they have a huge crime problem. Guns are readily available in other cities, where they do not have that problem. What if Chicago's laws have NO impact on gun ownership levels. So what? Let's say it is has zero effect, and that guns are just as available there as the are in, say, San Diego or Hartford. So what? The differential in crime is enormous. If you're really going to pretend that can't grasp that, then there's little point in continuing the conversation, because you're not fooling anybody.

Comment Re: Why? (Score 1) 447

You're not understanding the difference between long guns and pistols. Which is why I mentioned rifles, and specifically talked about the constantly pointless gun control focus on "assault weapons" (which aren't actually assault rifles, but look scary to people who don't understand that replacing wood with plastic doesn't change the way a semi-auto gun works).

If in any problem you find yourself doing an immense amount of work, the answer can be obtained by simple inspection.