Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Polite request (Score 1) 655

The Supreme Court actually got this ruling right. Otherwise, the police would be responsible for each and every murder (or other crime) that occurred since they obviously weren't there to stop it.

Um... but they ARE supposed to respond, and when they get there they ARE supposed to try to help. I don't know how anyone can plausibly argue for gun control of any kind in this country when we're clearly on our own to defend ourselves. Because if the police can't protect us, who will?

Comment Back to the future (Score 1) 87

It's gotten to the point that, in order to encrypt anything safely for a few years, I have to invent a time machine and steal the technology from the future. And kill the inventor, so that he doesn't independently discover it in the original time stream.

We just got vendors to stop using MD5 and SSL 3.0 about a year ago.

Comment Re:Maybe (Score 1) 416

Absolutely. In other news, when a woman is raped it's her fault for dressing like that.

Emissions testing is performed on a dyno with a computer attached to the car through the OBD-II port because it's far more efficient to do that driving the car around with a portable computer. I refuse to have to pay more taxes and jack up EPA funding because Japanese and Europeans cheat.

Comment For the moment... (Score 3, Insightful) 108

The pattern for Obama-- and many other politicians-- is this:

1. Voice opposition to X.
2. Announce s/he will engage in discussion with Y, which is a group that is clearly in favor of X.
3. Come back months to years later, claiming s/he doesn't see any reason why X can't be implemented.
4. If Congress doesn't implement it, reminds us s/he has a phone and a pen, and mostly implements it through executive regulation and taxation.
5. Bonus step for Obama: if you oppose X, you're now racist/prejudiced even though you agreed with Obama at step 1.

Comment Re:Does the real name policy curb trolling? (Score 1) 232

Perhaps, but imagine for a moment that you're an LGBT (or otherwise marginalised) teen living in a fairly hostile community. You'd want to reach out and communicate with people who could empathise, but wouldn't want to reveal your identity lest it lead to retribution.

That can be handled with the security settings. And I'm not accepting any friend requests or allowing access to any of my data whatsoever to unknown people.

Comment I'm usually behind the EFF on everything (Score 1) 232

But I still think that companies should still have whatever rules they want as long as they don't violate laws (including antitrust) and said rules are explicit and well documented. I'm puzzled by the presence of LGBT and feminist groups. Are LGBT groups trying to protect the relics who still want to keep it on the DL? Are the feminist groups trying to shield women from abusive EXes? Those are my guesses. Both of those are fixable with security settings.

I mean, if you don't use your real name, I'm not going to accept a friend request. I don't know who you are. So I see limited utility in you being on Facebook in the first place. Try one of a million message boards on the internet that don't care if you call yourself Batman.

All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.