Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:WWJD? (Score 1) 1075

by rockout (#49378319) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory

Obviously, the state not allowing itself to intervene is obviously not an exercise of the power of the state - it's an exercise in restraint of said power.

Obviously, that's just semantics - one could just as easily frame it as "the state is using it's power to make it more difficult for individuals to seek redress against corporations that discriminate against them." No matter how you look at it, the state is using its power to make discrimination easier.

The actual discriminatory power in this case comes from the individuals and corporations that discriminate - if there are none willing to do so, or if there are few enough and their scale is small, then it's all of no consequence. Even if said discrimination is pervasive, it is still limited to what private entities can legally do - so it's a very far cry from what government-powered discrimination can do (for example, it is not legal for corporations in the USA to summarily round up their customers and murder them in gas chambers; or to incarcerate them because they married a person of a different race).

So what? So because the corporations can't round up people and execute them, that makes this law okay? Your argument boils down to "well, at least Indiana isn't making it legal for corporations to start KILLING gay people, so we should be happy that they're only making it easier to discriminate against gay people."

Comment: Re:Convenience (Score 1) 214

by geminidomino (#49336843) Attached to: The GNU Manifesto Turns Thirty

No, you are ignorant of What is free software.I repeat: It's about freedom.

Actually, I know exactly what Free Software is (at least as defined by the FSF): I think you're just using the letter of the definition to ignore the spirit of it. You're conflating not distributing modified versions of released software with not distributing your own software - nothing wrong with that, we all have one-off scripts the universe at large isn't interested in - but there's nothing about that software that's "free" other than your statement that it is - If you decided that you weren't going to release it under the Oracle "We reserve the right to eat your Firstborn " license, the end result would be identical - no one else can run, copy, distribute,study, change, or improve it.

It contributes nothing to the software ecosystem or to society as a whole, which is the entire point of Free Software.

Comment: Re:Common sense (Score 1) 494

by geminidomino (#49328621) Attached to: Hacking Weight Loss: What I Learned Losing 30 Pounds

Less reliable than they say, in my case.

Having been in one of those "serious situations," my TDE, according to the common formula I found from just about every resource, was in the high 2000s. My first target was 1800 kcal, and I still either maintained or gained weight. It wasn't after dropping it to 1000 for a month (up to 12 for five months after that) that I started having any weight loss.

Not that I particularly recommend that approach. I lost weight, yes, but I spent six months feeling like a bear with a tranq in my ass.

Comment: Re:Common sense (Score 1) 494

by geminidomino (#49328565) Attached to: Hacking Weight Loss: What I Learned Losing 30 Pounds

Contrast that to a Dorito chip which is a bloated monolithic blob

OMG, just because they all come in the same bag doesn't mean it's monolithic! The chips are separate! If you want to take out one Dorito chip and replace it with a Pringles, you totally can (after using another Dorito chip to grind it down into the right shape).

Comment: Re:Randian Dumbfuckery (Score 1) 316

by geminidomino (#49326937) Attached to: First Lawsuits Challenging FCC's New Net Neutrality Rules Arrive

Gee, how was Ma Bell able to maintain a monopoly and keep anyone else from competing?

Oh, that's right! The FUCKING GOVERNMENT prevented competition!

Which was unrelated to the FCC's Title II regulation: "the government" is not one big, monolithic entity.

The government also continued to interfere after Ma Bell was broken up, and even after ISPs were re-classified as Title I communication services: every time they laid new cable or fiber. There is no internet access without government action - none of the providers are going to arrange land use/rental agreements with every property owner, so the only reason it's even a thing is because of the government exercising its "easement" (eminent domain) powers.

An inclined plane is a slope up. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"