Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved (Score 2) 92

but they don't consider the political and social aspects of our species that means vital funding of safety mechanisms and maintenance of absolutely crucial technology *will* be broken. it's simply a matter of when, not if

Or perhaps we understand that quite well. And decide that it's not that big a problem.

Civilian nuclear power deaths in the USA, to date: zero.

Military nuclear power deaths in the USA, to date: four? Basically the people in the room with the test reactor (that fit in a bathtub) when someone pulled the control rod (yes, there was only one) out by hand.

Hmm, 70 years of nuclear power in the USA, with so few casualties. I could wish the highways were that safe. Or Airline travel. Or trains. Or COAL MINING. Or Oil drilling. Or even hydropower dams.

Hell, more people have died just this year installing solar cells than have died in nuclear power accidents in the USA in all of history.....

Comment Re:Break The NDA (Score 1) 362

If they would like to give it a try, they could seek a court order to take down the iFixit app on the basis of an NDA violation.

So you want them to go to court against themselves to get themselves to stop selling something in their own store.

But them doing it on their own vs based on a court order is the difference between due process and vigilante justice.

Really? Are you really going to go with "vigilante justice"?

Comment Re:Break The NDA (Score 1) 362

Ok, so abstractly you agree that there are circumstances where Apple should remove content, where neither users are being harmed or the Apps are engaging in criminal activity. They're allowed to take down material that is involved in some kind of civil legal dispute. Like if someone is violating licensing terms. Or maybe contractual terms. Or... maybe violating an NDA?

Comment Re:Airstrikes on population centers (Score 1) 361

It's the fact that rather than bombing Daesh, they're bombing groups opposed to Daesh

As opposed to the USA, which is fighting ISIS (one of Assad's enemies) as well as Assad (one of ISIS' enemies). So we're on BOTH sides of a civil war in Syria.

Note, by the by, that helping Assad against ISIS allows Assad to use more of his own troops against, say, the Kurds, who are our nominal allies in the region.

So, we're helping Assad fight some of his enemies, while helping some of his enemies fight Assad....

Comment Re:Break The NDA (Score 1) 362

So by that argument, any terms that Apple has for placing apps in their app store (other than those barring criminal or user-harming behavior) are inherently unethical. I think that's debatable, especially depending on your definitions of "criminal behavior" or "user-harming behavior". For example, iFixit broke their legal agreement with Apple: is that "criminal" behavior? You could say that, no, it's not, because it's a civil dispute and not technically "criminal". On the other hand, copyright, trademark, and patent disputes are generally civil disputes, so can Apple remove content where the intellectual property ownership is in dispute?

Comment Re:It's all clouds (Score 1) 90

To be honest, securing email is not that hard, unless you want to "manually" set up a structure to check messages for weird stuff.

It's not that complicated, but it's complicated enough that I've seen plenty of people mess it up. And no, it's not just "checking messages for weird stuff". If you think that's all that's involved, then you don't know enough to run a mail server.

Do you know what SSL certificates are, or how to set one up? Do you know how to set up your firewall to allow only the appropriate ports to the Exchange server, and which ports need to be allowed? Do you understand the security implications of allowing incoming traffic to your network? Do you need to set up multiple Exchange servers with different roles, and do you know what the security implications of that would be? Do you know what MX servers are, and how to set it up so that you don't lose incoming email during a server outage? Do you know how to do a proper backup/restore of your Exchange environment, and how to secure those backups both from breach and loss? Do you know if your email system currently has any unpatched vulnerabilities? Do you have a way of mitigating those vulnerabilities? Do you have a good regimen for installing updates and patches, including testing to prevent unforeseen downtime?

Security isn't just about protecting yourself from malicious email.

You can "outsource" an email hygiene service, to handle the inbound of your email, clean it, and deliver it to your own server

Whoa there. I thought we just established that you're unwilling to trust an outside vendor with your email, and now you're planning on routing all of your email through an outside vendor? If I were paranoid enough about my email to refuse to use a hosted provider, I don't think I'd be willing to use a hosted spam filtering service.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 173

Oops. Time to correct myself. After a quick glance over (which is all this is worth), I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2).

I thought I had seen such, but it seems I was mistaken.

Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think?

It could be that you are finally seeing the true way of ethical behavior, and replying to my previous Slashdot comment, in the same medium in which you were addressed the other day.

But from experience, I think that's about as likely as contracting leprosy from a wild armadillo... in Vermont.

More likely -- again just my opinion but justified by circumstances -- you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 173

Wait... I will amend that.

Your comments DO have something to do with comments of mine in recent days which have been misrepresented, out of context. Yet again.

Your incessant postings of things which are completely irrelevant and not even roughly comparable (in context), is just more proof of the impression of "clueless nutcase" your presentation of yourself screams to others.

I am aware that you were not happy of my showing how ridiculous your arguments were on Twitter. But this isn't Twitter. If you're going to discuss Twitter, why don't you copy ALL of what I said here?

The obvious answer is that yet again you want the advantage of misrepresenting things, outside the real context in which you were shown to be acting and writing foolishly.

No sympathy here. As I stated earlier, you have been reported. Your blatantly unethical behavior is being recorded for posterity. Have a day.

Comment Re:Sandy Hook (Score 1) 1139

Hmm, a quick check...

If I didn't miscount, since 1990, there have been 288 deaths in "school shootings" (note that that number includes at least one case of an adult shot by another adult in a school parking lot).

With 330 million or so people, and 35 years, that puts the annual per capita death rate from "school shootings" at 0.000000016.

Terrorist attacks in the same 25 year period. Hmm, let's use 9/11 and call it good. 2753 from the direct attack. So, 0.00000033.

Yep, looks like you're right.

Even with a very strict definition of "terrorist acts" (essentially reducing it to "there's been ONE terrorist act"), and a loose enough definition of "school shooting" to include adults unrelated to the school in any way shooting each other in the parking lot, we have about ten times as many terrorist deaths as school shooting deaths in a generation.

Comment Re:Gun-free zone? (Score 1) 1139

The US also had amendment 18. The constitution is not immutable.

Quite so. Feel free to propose an Amendment eliminating the Second.

And if it doesn't pass (and it won't, since the requirements are high enough that the States with no gun problems are more than sufficient to make the proposal ignorable), then shut up about it already!

Comment Re: Gun-free zone? (Score 1) 1139

The military has undoubtedly determined that arming everyone would cause more gun deaths than not arming them.

No, the military has determined that the investigation into a missing rifle/pistol/tank/howitzer (not to mention the paperwork required to deal with a missing rifle/pistol/howitzer) is FAR, FAR more trouble than just keeping the (government property) firearms in the arms room.

Note, by the by, that I grew up on military bases. Yes, my family kept firearms in base housing. No, the military had no real issues with that (yes, there was paperwork associated with them, but not terribly onerous). Hell, there were even ranges dedicated to personal firearms (skeet, 50ft rifle/pistol, long range rifle/pistol)....

Comment Re:Gun-free zone? (Score 1) 1139

the second amendment references a *well-regulated* militia. in today's language, that means well trained

If you live in the USA, are 18+ (and male, though that latter requirement is probably void due to more recent law), you are a member of the Militia. As are your children, siblings, etc.

So, why don't you own an M4 variant, which would technically be required for a proper militia weapon (though I'm personally fond of a .30-06 bolt action - much better range)? Plus a Unit of Ammo (God knows what that is these days, but I'd guess 300-400 rounds of 5.56), of course.

New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman