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


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:the riskiest thing i do everyday (Score 1) 163

Well, yes, you're right. Still, there is a tendency to oppose risks imposed on one than those one chooses.

Well, true, but we do have to make some decisions as a community rather than as individuals. I guess that's why you have some choices as to where you live.

Comment Re:the riskiest thing i do everyday (Score 1) 163

But so so so worth it! What do you ride?

Not to mention that moving furniture is damn deadly too! Apparently 15 Americans are crushed to death moving their furniture every year! BAN THE COUCH!

I absolutely agree. I used to ride sport bikes (mostly Suzuki) but I'm old now and my knees and back are shot (product of a few ill-advised get-offs) and I have to wear a bracelet that warns EMTs that I'm missing an internal organ. (In case they need to know, I guess.) These days I ride a Harley touring model. I figure I'll keep riding for as long as my body lets me.

When daughter was still in daycare, I had to rush home from work to switch over to the truck so I could pick her up. The logistics were complicated and I ended up traveling part of the route multiple times. One time she asked me why I rode the motorcycle? I said imagine a roller coaster that starts at your house and ends at your work, and you get to ride it every day.

The point is, it's all about managed risk. If the benefit is great enough, the risk might be worth it, and/or there might be reasonable ways to mitigate the risk. Nuclear power has its disadvantages, but you don't have to dam rivers or burn coal, and it makes a lot of energy, even at night when there's no wind. There are ways to do it wrong, but there's ways to do anything wrong.

I didn't know that about moving furniture. I *did* bolt the bookcases to the wall studs, because I had nightmares of the kid trying to climb them and tipping one over. But she never did.

What do you ride?

Comment Re:Or you could... (Score 2) 87

That's true, I was just proposing the solution I had personal experience with. The point is, none of these solutions require a monthly fee.

This is similar in my view to Comcast or whatever they're calling themselves these days trying to sign people up for a security system at an inflated price monthly price that continues ad infinitum, when you can *buy* the equipment and incur no recurring cost for less than a year's cost of the service.

Cable companies still seem to be locked into the business plan of "providing a service" for a stiff monthly fee for essentially doing very little besides keeping the lights on and maintaining the billing service. That really doesn't work anymore.

Comment Learnings (Score 1) 367

I think the learning from this debacle might be the same as the one from The Fappening. If you don't want people to see it DON'T PUT IT ON THE INTERNET. Geeze, this isn't hard. It's like putting all your embarrassing stuff in a cardboard box marked "Private!! Do not open!!" in the middle of a busy city. And "security" is just duct tape around the box.

Comment Re:Two possibly useful features and one useless on (Score 4, Interesting) 87

The accident reporting and roadside assistance features could be useful. As soon as these become readily available, though, one of the first things that a car thief would do is pull the dongle out of the OBD II port and throw it and the visor widget out the window, making it impossible to track the car. As a built in module, it works, because it's difficult for a thief to remove, but if it can be removed in 30 seconds without tools, it's worthless for tracking a stolen car.

Thing is, accident reporting and roadside assistance features can be had with any cell phone. And also some aftermarket in-dash radio/gps units.

Having these features as an add-on to the car would be convenient, if not for the monthly cost. It seems like Verizon is really reaching here.

Comment I predict nothing will come of this (Score 1) 303

The Clintons have, over the years, demonstrated a supreme ability to shake off controversy. I don't see this going anywhere.

Hillary could have actual blood on her hands and her prints on the weapon and she's look indignant, deny everything and blame it on her political adversaries. It's a strategy that's worked very well for her in the past.

Comment Re:Yes (Score 2) 687

I think we're drifting from the point a little bit. It's not about playing conqueror. It's about wanting or needing someone else's resources. The overall point is that going back to an agrarian society doesn't mean the people who are successful at growing crops will have food and everyone else is just going to sit at home and die. What Sweetness doesn't realize is that those hungry people are going to take their stuff. And no amount of group standing in a circle and chanting is going to change that.

What usually happens is that some group of hungry people get organized, weaponize, and then take over. But this isn't necessarily about an organized take-over. It's about the rest of the world wanting scarce resources that you happen to have. They'd be *lucky* if it were an organized take-over, because a mob wouldn't leave anything, and then everyone starves.

The kind of society that Sweetness envisions only works, sadly, if there's a larger social structure that's willing to put up with them and protect them. They can't exist on their own.

And as I think you pointed out, even if they existed in a complete vacuum, eventually other members, or their kids, would think, why do I put up with this when I can just pick up a rock and take over?

Comment Re: Yes (Score 1) 687

I can't remember where I saw this... some British drama ... Police investigating a break-in and disappearance, found a cricket bat in the bedroom. One cop speculated that if the owner had a cricket bat in his bedroom, he must have been spoiling for a fight. And everyone just nodded their heads. This is where I lose hope for humanity.

Comment Re:Yes (Score 4, Insightful) 687

if applied in practice, produce a police force entirely compatible with anarchism.

But only guaranteed if someone were to enforce your rule #1... which of course would be incompatible with anarchism.

Hence the flaw in many arguments for various non-centralized forms of government. If the rules aren't enforced, they're likely to forcibly change. If they're enforced by some central authority, the government is no longer what you said it was.

My favorite example was the young woman interviewed during Occupy Wall Street, who said we should all abandon money and civilization and go back to being an agrarian society. When it was pointed out to her that such a decision would cause a massive die-off of American citizens, her response was "well, people die."

Ok, let's look at that for a minute, sweetness. You and your colorful friends develop an agrarian society somewhere, and let's say you're actually successful, in that you can adequately and sustainably feed all of your members with a little left over.

Then, one day a bunch of hungry brutes with guns arrive, and suddenly you find that the survivors in your little community are working for the brute squad, and life isn't nearly as nice. What are you gonna do about it? "Mike check!"