Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 286

You don't have any natural rights to be free from tigers or from gravity. But you DO have the natural expectation that another rational being will understand that if they attack you, they are waiving their own claim on living peacefully. That you don't grasp this is pretty amazing, really.

You'll find that your idea of "rights" disappears quite quickly as soon as any functioning society breaks down.

My "idea" of rights exists at any scale and under any circumstances. That's the entire point. Irrational people do indeed look to take advantage circumstances in which they feel willing to take the chance that their use of violence will go unchallenged because of unpleasant or unexpected circumstances. Which doesn't change the fact that they lose their claim to life when they deny you yours. That's the right you naturally have: to use (or have used on your behalf) the violence necessary to defend your life. Why? Because rational people don't kill other people except in self defense. Those who initiate the violence waive their rights to live in peace.

You're confusing having a right with happening to have the power to defend it at some particular time. These are not the same thing.

Comment Re: We are returning to the dark ages. (Score 1) 77

We are descending into a dark age. We have a culture of death, where we've replaced reproduction with immigration. This has been true for decades, and is becoming more pronounced with the passage of time. We have too many elderly, and our women are facing ever increasing pressure to choose service over family, creating a spiral effect. We will reach a point where we don't have the numbers to keep the infrastructure going. Our modern technological society relies on myriad resources being available, and as those resources become unavailable, all the knowledge in the world won't matter. Once we're unable to implement our discoveries and designs, people will forget them.

As we became more advanced, our creations became more delicate. The more delicate they are, the quicker archeological evidence of them deteriorates. There is no reason to believe this hasn't happened before.

ISIS are standing in opposition to this pattern, but I doubt they will be effective enough to prevent it. I'd say a dark age is pretty much guaranteed.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 286

Exactly, because in the jungle there are no rights

Oh, I get it now. You think that human beings aren't any different in their cognitive abilities, capacity for reason, and ability to think abstractly and communicate than are, say, tigers or lemurs.

I don't need it, but I need a government to tell others that.

No, you can tell them yourself, and if they are too irrational to digest the concept, and you're too weak to defend against violent, irrational people, then you need a government to help you protect your rights.

Comment Does it affect functionality at all? (Score 1) 352

In true Slashdot fashion, I didn't read TFA just the TFS. Assuming that the source is capable (ie, did everything practical to disable telemetry, including any weakly published registry settings, etc) and is accurately counting firewall hits (how many of these are one telemetry source retrying relentlessly?) and not attempting to be an anti-MS shill, this really sucks that disabling it per MS instructions doesn't actually disable it.

That being said, does it affect functionality? Does stuff not work (for all definitions of not work -- from not all to pokey slow because it's trying and faiiling to hit a telemetry server)?

While I would expect corporations with an eye on security to object, I would also expect places like that to have a fairly stern outbound firewall policy and filtering system that would block a lot of telemetry by default, mitigating some of this but still not eliminating the annoyance of a machine that does what it wants.

I'm also curious how much analysis of telemetry has been done. Do we know what processes on the machine are responsible for telemetry, and are there any ways to disable them? Have the telemetry messages been analyzed to develop firewall rule groups to block them by IP, URL or DNS?

Comment Re:Stupid design (Score 2) 120

The second one is the device is dropping voltage and consuming power. In standard USB with 500mA at 5V, if the MOSFET takes 1V, that's half a watt of power you're losing in the transistor. (And really, you just use a diode). USB-C with up to 100W, you're looking at losing a lot of power in your reverse protection components.

100% wrong.

The MOSFET is not a diode. Diodes DO cause a 0.6-1V drop. That's why they use a MOSFET instead here in applications where a diode drop is too much. The MOSFET only drops as much as its internal Ron on-resistance allows. For a high-grade MOSFET, that can be in the single milliohms, so it's effectively a dead short. Cheapo MOSFETs are still in the low tens of milliohms. So with 3A of power, that's 1/4W with a crappy 30mohm MOSFET, or 72mW with one with a 8mohm on-resistance. The only reason you'd leave this out if reverse polarity is at all possible is cheapness.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 286

So you think that just because you decided to kill them, they didn't have the right to live? That's really your take on things?

If you initiate violence, you are giving up your OWN claim on your right to live. You have the right up until you infringe on someone else's. That's simple, rational stuff. If you can't use reason in your world view, then you are by definition looking at things irrationally. If you act irrationally, and it results in you doing something like killing those 9 people, then you have waived your own right to your life. Do you get that? You don't need a government to tell you that. But if you can't figure it out without a government telling you that, please do the rest of us a favor and don't do anything dangerous like voting.

Comment Re:Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 428

right...because universities are strictly liberal institutions.....
I have a feeling you haven't been to one yourself recently, if ever.

Organizations like The FIRE and CampusWatch don't exist because it's conservatives lining up and restricting your speech. Or because those evil conservatives are trying to block or protect people to express their opinions in a public place.

Sadly, the piece of paper from UW says otherwise. And the last time I was there, it of course being a STEM university, this shit hadn't started infiltrating it yet. Though if I wonder into York or Toronto, it's everywhere.

and the dude's shirt WAS sexist.
if you don't why here in the 21st century, that's your deficiency.

So you're saying that a women who designed the shirt is sexist because she's an artist, and that's her artistic medium? Maybe the problem is you, and you're wish and desire to be offended at anything that hurts your sensibilities. Why do you believe that women need to be coddled like delicate flowers?

Comment Re:Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 428

It was inappropriate and I would never had heard about the "shirt" if it wasn't for MRAs spending so much of their time complaining that they were offended that someone else somewhere else was offended by the shirt.

Too bad it wasn't the MRA's complaining about how they were offended that started it right? It was the rabid feminists, and the rabid feminists in the press that did.

That was a (maybe not-so) tragic lesson for both the guy and the woman who got fired. She made a big deal over nothing, the company fired the one developer because he embarrassed the company and they already wanted to fire him (a sane employer wouldn't fire a good employee over a single minor incident), and the woman got fired for the backlash her actions caused (and rightly so, she deliberately and publicly made a fuss over a private conversation).

Ah so you've go the inside track as to why they fired him? That should be easy for you to provide sources. Oh and a company wouldn't fire someone over something like that? Or did you forget that most places in the US it's "at will employment." Meaning being fired for something that trivial and even less trivial happens a lot more then you'd think.

So I guess what I'm saying is if these are your biggest grievances, you should spend more time thinking about how good things must be for you, because if these pathetic examples of injustice are the biggest problems facing you, you don't have any problems at all.

Oh, but no mention on the no-platform stuff? Or student unions going after students for refusing to follow the group think? Or the press in general spouting off at the hip with the same garbage. Like why air conditioning is sexist, or why if you don't vote for hillary you're a misogynist. Seems to me, you're right on the cusp of figuring out that there's a serious problem with a segment of the left, but you're hoping it'll go away before you have to call it out for being batshit insane.

Comment Re:O RLY? (Score 1) 307

Any major manned project at this point is going to involve a lot of robotic probes and preparation.

Yeah, we're already doing that. We've sent robotic probes to the Moon, Mars, and the asteroid belt lately. Have you forgotten about all the hubbub over the bright spots they found on Ceres? We are *not* ignoring the asteroid belt.

But asteroids are a lot easier to get to and from than Mars, precisely because of their lack of gravity and lack of atmosphere.

I disagree. True, Mars has enough of an atmosphere to be a nuisance (because you need reentry shielding, but there's not enough there to be really useful for aerobraking), but it's also significantly closer than the belt. Farther = a longer journey. For a probe, a few extra months might not be that big a deal, but for humans, it is. Mars is already too far as it is (as in, "too long a journey for most people to want to sit in a spacecraft that long", plus the radiation concerns).

A lunar space elevator might be a nice project. But in the end, the moon is a really harsh environment, the resources it has are hard to get at, and it, too, has just too much gravity.

The environment isn't that harsh; it's 3 days away (super-close in celestial terms), and there's no annoying atmosphere, and just enough gravity so that we can operate on it without having to invent all-new methods for every simple little thing. But the gravity is low enough that a lunar space elevator should be quite doable, unlike Earth (where the gravity is way too high so we don't have good materials with enough strength, and we have a thick atmosphere that causes all kinds of problems with such an elevator).

The proximity of moon to earth also means that remotely operated robots are a reasonable alternative to manned exploration.

I disagree entirely. For simple probing around, sure, that'll work OK, but if you want to do any really serious work, you have to have boots on the ground. Remotely-operated vehicles are *not* going to build factories, mines, etc. We do *not* have that kind of technology yet. Some heavy-equipment stuff could definitely be converted to remote-control: dump trucks, shovels, etc. But that'll only work as long as nothing goes wrong. As soon as something breaks or gets stuck, you're going to need some people there to deal with it. So you could definitely get by with a lot less manpower on-site, by operating a lot of vehicles remotely, but you'll still need some. It's just like our UAVs ("drones") used by the US military: the planes are flown remotely, I think even by people stateside, but you still have to have real people on-site in the theater to refuel them, do maintenance work, etc., when they land. It'll be the same for heavy equipment on the Moon.

I still think our primary focus should be exploration of the asteroid belt, first with robotic probes, then towing asteroids into lunar orbits, creating habitats, and finally moving out there.

We're already exploring the asteroid belt. We could stand to do more though. But there's no reason we can't get started building habitats and industrial facilities on the Moon simultaneously. We already know there's a crapload of asteroids out there with valuable ores, so we might as well prepare for using them. And we should definitely be working right away on building the technology for capturing and towing these asteroids.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 286

In a modern society arms are useless.

Really? Then why does every single political leader - across the spectrum, including flaming lefty tyrants, eastern European strongmen, laid-back Scandinavian royalty and elected officials, mayors of cities, etc. - have armed protection at their disposal?

Why do police departments train in the use of arms? Why do militaries, even strictly defensive ones, understand the need to be able to use arms?

It's nice for you that you live in a fantasy world where there is no need for a 90-pound woman to ever defend herself against a man three times her size. Where is it, exactly, that you live that there are absolutely no violent people, no robberies, no rapes, no crimes that endanger lives? Please be specific, and if you would, please link to some reports that show your zero crime rate. Not that you will, of course, because you're full of it, and you know it.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 286

What a load of shit. Without a government, you have no rights. Go live in a jungle sometime...

Wow, you really haven't thought this through, have you? You should.

So, you and another 100 people are in the jungle. 10 of you decide to get together in a group (you know, assembling) and chant something they think is important (you know ... speaking). Who is giving them the perfectly natural behavioral elbow room to assemble and express themselves? The other 90 people who aren't even paying attention to them? The trees? No. These are perfect examples of "natural rights." If some of the other 90 people decide to get together and force those 10 people to no longer gather, or no longer speak their minds, they are infringing on their freedom to assemble and speak.

The US constitution recognizes this, and its first amendment explicitly says that the government can't infringe on that right. There's no place in the constitution that defines the right to assemble or speak ... those are a given. They are self-evident, natural freedoms that can only be limited by other people or groups. Those 10 people don't need the other 90 to do anything in order for their group of 10 to be able to gather and speak. They can do that without any action or permission from anybody. If someone decides to take action shut them up, that's infringement of that right.

Without a government, a society, a rule of law, etc there is no such thing as 'rights'.

Nonsense. Without rule of law, there is no protection of rights. You really think that your right to speak comes from the government? You truly don't understand that it's the government's job to prevent other people (and those same government institutions) from forcibly shutting you up?

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 428

Sorry, let me clarify.

During those 8 weeks or so it is a full time job. And honestly, some of the laws and especially the budget are so complex that it isn't something you just whip out the pen and start writing. Maybe full-time research staff, but honestly that is the job of legislators.

And I personally believe that they should spend as much time reviewing old laws for relevance, modification and possible repeal as they do making new ones.

Slashdot Top Deals