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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:stupid (Score 1) 305

In the world in which doctors are constantly evaluating all humans for all conditions, I agree with you. But "the average slob" does not go to see the doctor unless he is dying, and when he is dying, his bladder/hairloss/libido issues may not come up.

"end users, ask your sysadmin if systemd is right for you."

"End users, there is this thing called VPN which lets you do your work offsite. Ask your sysadmin if you want privileges enabled on your account."

Comment Re:Reality acceptance issues... (Score 1) 728

The amazing part is that most people don't consider it as a disease to be eradicated.

Clearly, plenty do. There's always some "disease to be eradicated." It could be a religion or other ideology, or an ethnicity. If you haven't had your turn yet to dig the mass graves I'm sure as time goes on the opportunity will arise. Then your ideological allies (if you're not around) can go about eradicating the disease and ushering in the new paradise. It's funny how eliminating these undesirable elements of humanity and thought never seems to produce the promised paradise, however. But I'm sure it will work for you.

Comment First Priority is to Protect the Innocent (Score 1) 121

If the police failed to act on information a rape or murder was planned because they wanted to catch the perpetrator in the act, there would be outcry. You don't jeopardize the safety of the innocent to assail the (potentially) guilty. Collecting foreign intelligence is not more important than heading off immediate threats to domestic citizens. Clearly the NSA views it as all about "catching the bad guy" and has forgotten the reason the bad guys are considered bad. It's like SWAT leaving a bomb in a public building because, "Hey, maybe we could trip it when the bad guys get back."

Comment If you're in Britain (Score 2) 324

Don't store anything on the laptop. The fact they can legally compel you to provide the means of data access means you are in trouble in every case which they have possession of both you and your laptop. You can either do a really good job of hiding the data or you can keep it outside of where they can get it. How about a remote server a trusted person can deactivate if they hear about your situation?

Comment Re:Circadian rhythm (Score 1) 291

But the time we set our clocks to has no bearing on levels of sunlight, that's just how we originally began measuring it. We can start our days at 8am as well as we can start them at 7am. Apparently we really like being able to have everyone in large (but not too large) geographic regions say they 'start work at 7' and that 'Spongebob will be on at 9.' Whatever reasons we have for that, are they reasons which are going to fall apart if things shift by 1 second every couple of years? I'm guessing not.

Comment Re:This piece is hosted on the internet.. (Score 1) 248

Probably, yes. The development of space exploration could be basically credited to the occurrence of the the second world war. Does that indicate the need for more world wars to advance human civilization?

Anecdotal evidence is inherently flawed here because, no matter what route we had taken, we could always point to whatever we did achieve and say "we wouldn't have that if we had done something else" and not be aware of anything we might have created instead. So it's a kind of evidence that can only support the status quo.

Personally, I think it's obvious that a global communications network was inevitable. The internet was not even the first thing which could be called that. There are various reasons it could actually have benefited us to develop the technology later and/or in a different way. What if we wound up with all data and communications encrypted by default, for example? The internet is great but its existence in its present form is not a proof that society needs to progress through projects undertaken by our department of defense.

The real question is how much *general progress* results from dollars invested in NSF grants etc. verses dollars invested in other ways. That's a difficult enough question that is probably a lot of fair points to be made either way. But by all means lets try to qualify what a dollar of public research spending gets us. We may decide we want to keep public research but still reform how it is set up.

Comment Re:Robots (Score 1) 284

You can always work cheaper than a robot. Whatever a robot costs, there's nothing stopping you from charging less (well, except minimum wage laws). How will you afford to eat? Because thanks to the fact food is now produced by robots and supercheap labor, it doesn't cost very much any more.

People will always be exchanging things. Money facilitates that. It won't ever become the barrier preventing it. What really drives people away from menial labor is having better job options to where trying to outbid robots is not appealing.

Comment Re:House loses most staunch Democrat (Score 1) 406

"Look, we've already put a trip to the Bahamas in our itinerary, the only thing we can reasonably do now is sign up for more credit cards."

The economists promise us there are complicated economic reasons why our present debt is good, or at least not bad, and I'm not saying they are wrong (I'm not educated enough to do so). But I don't think the domestic analogy is the way to go if you want to defend that position.

Newtonian mechanics is not going to explain how the cat is both dead and alive.

Comment Re:Wrong! (Score 1) 485

Fyi, desegregation and decriminalization of SSM have also both happened under a mostly Christian society. I don't think it was because an atheist cabal took over (unless you are intellectually in camp with the extreme fundamentalists, they might say that). Under what special mode of reasoning do you get to credit the Christians who accepted these rules and not the Christians who fought against them?

It used to be abolitionists who were the crazy extremists. What did they typically cite as their reason for advocating those extreme beliefs?

Otherwise, what rational reason is there to deny other people their own choices in how to live their lives as long as they aren't victimizing anyone?

Right, the only motivation anyone has for wanting society to go along with their ideas is religion. That's why we have people who want to ban you from ordering a large soda, smoking a cigarette, homeschooling your kids, using gender pronouns, etc.

There are plenty of societies which have realized religious beliefs are a problem and have restricted them. Which of those do you find more free and preferable to the one you live in right now?

Comment Re:Until they can't (Score 1) 576

Unless we are going to have immigrant get scanned in everywhere they go

Credit cards? You could require people with visas to be paid only through special accounts accessible by card. Mind, I'm not saying you should. But you'd have a lot of incentive for them to "check in" regularly and data about their habits which would probably lead to detectable changes even if they handed off the card. Of course, with premeditation, human beings can still disappear, but it might be evident when it happens and where to start the investigation.

Comment Re:Glad they didn't read the books (Score 1) 197

There's a rather large gap between writing "a rape occurred" and graphically depicting it. If the events were related by characters secondhand, I'm willing to bet no one would care. GoT does deserves 1st amendment protections, of course, but I can sympathize with people who find it troubling that extended depictions of torture and rape are considered entertaining.

Comment Re:GTFO! (Score 1, Interesting) 480

They evidently don't like it, but it's pretty dumb to quit because someone else got a raise, esp. when it means the CEO is now making less than you. I suppose the story was supposed to be "CEO sacrifices pay so engineers can upgrade Escalades to Ferraris," which of course would have been very heart touching.

Comment Re:Raising questions about freedom of speech? (Score 3, Insightful) 298

There is also nothing in the constitution that says any entity must allow you to use their property at the exclusion of others in order to express your speech.

Correct. Only a government entity (such as the city) must allow you equal access to their public resources (such as this park) without using forceful intervention (such as sending in police) to suppress it.

the city said no if a wanted criminal and fugitive from law would be a party of it.

Free speech is about the speech, not the person speaking. Otherwise we should not have any problem, e.g., banning Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. After all, Marx is dead -- and was never a citizen -- so surely his right to free speech would not be infringed by the ban.

Neckties strangle clear thinking. -- Lin Yutang