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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Let's get real (Score 1) 227

In your eagerness to stop the fear mongering you badly understate North Korea's capability.

Proof is needed, not speculation. Understating according to who? The local populace? South Korea? Maybe.. but that is not because the DPRK has enough military power to win a war, it's because they have the potential to do a hell of a lot of damage to Seoul and a few other Norther areas if a war started. They lack air and naval power to win anything.

20 years ago guys like you declared the same things, that the North's economy and tyranny made scientific accomplishments like nukes and rockets impossible. Since then they've detonated nukes(plural) and launched satellites(plural again). I'm not sure where you've set the bar for 'meaningful' but the North has made succeeded in building nuclear weapons and launching rockets around the world.

Ahh, nothing like the old red herring line of shit. I did not state that scientific accomplishments were impossible, I said it was expensive and they could not afford it. Expensive in terms of both man power and money, and man power when you don't trust anyone is certainly a pretty huge hurdle to cross. Care to guess at how many scientists are killed annually in the DPRK? Percentage wise, it's higher than many other jobs because scientists tend to think and question more. Tyrannies have always had this problem with keeping scientific minds, read some history books.

The reality is that if Seoul wasn't housing 10million people within range of North Korean artillery, NATO probably would have removed the Kim dynasty generations ago.

Horse shit! The number 1 reason that people claim to ignore the DPRK is "China", not the geographical location in relation to South Korea.

You keep on spreading FUD though.. it works on the masses who don't question or contemplate what they get told.

Comment Re:Current use != Original intent w/proof (Score 1) 132

Seriously, you can't see the difference between a Police officer finding evidence at a crime scene, and a Police officer reading your personal emails to find something? Are you really trying to claim that the founders were so goddamn naive they believed that people in power are, and would always be altruistic?

There is a world of difference between a random search, and a warrant being issued due to evidence related to a crime. If you don't see the difference and are not just a troll, I hope your masters pay you well.

Comment Current use != Original intent w/proof (Score 1) 132

I have to point out the obvious, which is that there has been nearly 2 centuries of people pumping money into propaganda to convince people that the Constitution and Bill of Rights means what they want to mean, not what was intended originally. That people continue believing increasing levels of bullshit is not a surprise, incremental change is how things always happen. Propaganda and Sociology are not "new" sciences by any stretch of the imagination, but also not something normal people get taught about.

So read some history and figure out what was intended by the 5th, and you will find that it does not match the currently used "spun" definition. I'll give you an easy one, which history will verify repeatedly. If you need citation start at the Federalist papers, Biographies, and court documents from the US and England.

At the time of the Revolution, British soldiers were searching people's houses for things like diaries. If you had the wrong shit written in yours, you were executed and sometimes sent to a nice London jail. Vague writings were the best, because a person disliked could easily be charged with a crime based on their own words with invented outcomes. Speculative thought crimes like "he was thinking treason" were as common as false allegations, "see he was mad at the Smithers so killed that guy everyone thought was mauled by the bear". It was all about who disliked you and what dirt they could find on you (nothing new there). The limitations in the Constitution were intended to prevent the Government or an agent from searching your crap and using it to possibly invent a crime based on their findings. The part about "speech" is a newly formed pile of shit which people are gullible and ignorant enough to believe.

History will show you the "meaning" of all of the wording in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Contrary to bullshitter and con-artists statements, there is no ambiguity or accidental language in the documents. None, zero, zip, nada, nill, null, etc.. etc...

Comment Re:Let's get real (Score 1) 227

My point was to correct the possible perception you or anyone else has about "tiny" nukes being something the DPRK has, or would be able to use in any offensive capability. Your casual use of the technology has the potential of inflate the fear mongering, especially next statements about "nuclear or thermonuclear warheads" and lack of mention of "cost" for any of those things. The 3rd world economy of the DPRK, and tyrannical government, mean that they do not have the budge or manpower for any meaningful development of WMDs like nukes.

Comment Re:Let's get real (Score 3, Interesting) 227

I know next to nothing about nuclear or thermonuclear warheads other than that a modern thermonuclear warhead is pretty damn small. But I suspect that downsizing a bomb once you have one that works probably is not that big a deal. e.g. the US exploded its first nuclear weapon in July 1945. By 1953 the US was deploying a nuclear artillery system. I think it unlikely that the warhead for that was more than a few hundred kg. But what do I know?

That first sentence is honest, and ignorance is easily cured. "Modern" warheads owned by the US are not the same as "Modern" warheads owned by any other nation, especially the DPRK. The US spends, and has spent, massive amounts of money over a massive amount of time developing a nuclear weapons program.

Nuclear "artillery" is costly beyond belief, extremely limited in usability, only effective if there are other larger backers. It is the ultimate weapon of last resort when defending, but has almost zero use outside of that. Time to set up, maintenance of the munitions, handling of the munition, and protecting the munition are complex and costly activities. A tiny warhead mishandled or sabotaged in a base destroys the base and everyone in it.

The DPRK is once again being used for fear mongering. Fear mongering is the main reason why nobody has gone to war to end the regime. The US, UK, and everyone else in NATO loves the DPRK because "scare the populace to get what you want without revolt". China and Russia like them because the west military build up means they can justify their own investments in military power. The recent fear of the H-Bomb is just to convince people that the DPRK can now use small nukes (which it can't), and the fear mongering because of their current missiles, which are SCUD missiles, which can't even launch a tiny satellite... laughable.

Comment You got the point! (Score 2) 132

It is not about protecting "their" ideas, it's about brain washing people that it's okay to own an idea. This already happens today, but we sure don't hear any debate about the Government fixing patent trolls and the laws that allow abuse. In reality, that is small potatoes. Big players own all the big ideas. No need to troll is involved.

The brain washing will stop us peons from challenging the status quo.

Comment FUD on top of FUD (Score 4, Informative) 699

Linux is anything but fragile. Stop blaming the OS for a shitty design in UEFI! Linux is so stable and solid that it lets you run "rm -rf /" and it will actually do what you asked it to until it can no longer figure out the machine it's on and commands needed to talk to a disk. This is a more than 45 year old design. Yes, that's right. In AT&T's original Unix you could also kill a system with "rm -rf /".

'but', 'but', 'but', oh shut up and stop spreading FUD! "rm" is the remove command, "-r" is recursive, and "-f" is force. You need to be root to run this with any success, so it's not like any old user can remove everything.

The problem is that UEFI allows an OS to write to areas which it should not be able to write to. If you open all the PROM in a system it's not just the OS that can brick a system. A malicious person can do so just as easy, and without being so obvious as running "rm -rf /"

Comment Re:You seem to have missed their "logic" (Score 1) 539

this is not about freedom to express. It is about a freedom not to listen to someone else when they do.

Are you talking about the freedom of expression? The one that allows people to freely participate in groups of their choosing - and as you put, not of their choosing? It also lets people form groups to promote the interests of that group. This "SJW" crisis that you've manufactured is just groups of people who don't want to associate and private businesses saying "wow, it's in our best interests to promote this group of consumer!" What it sounds like you're talking about is the government mandating private business - which is what I consider the opposite of freedom.

I'll give you a quick test to see if your freedom of speech has been taken away online: step 1: go to stormfront.org, if it is still up, you still have freedom of speech.

Your test is simply asinine and unrealistic. Losing freedom of speech is does not require that you go to jail for saying something. It requires that a person becomes intimidated and afraid to speak. TFA is about ads having priority over your choice of what to see, read, and hear. On sites like Slashdot you will hear argument against this type of thing, but you won't be hearing it on the evening news. There are people who wish to control everything you read, see, and hear. It's about power, plain and simple.

I gave a hint at the connection between the controlled narrative and what we are seeing in media and politics. There is no "manufactured" SJW crisis, there is a fixed narrative which is being spread. You don't have to connect the dots or like the connections, but they are surely there. Anyone who wishes can listen to politicians, watch the evening news, and listen to the "extremists" which we are told don't matter and see the connections.

Comment You seem to have missed their "logic" (Score 0, Offtopic) 539

Just like many of the other SJW rants, this is not about freedom to express. It is about a freedom not to listen to someone else when they do. If you agree with them and have the same opinion that is a start, but in order to dominate you must squash all opposing opinions.

While the concept of squashing dissent is not new (check just about every Government in history) is not new, the form we see now is akin to McCarthyism. Slam any opposing opinion by claiming that _their_ opinion is hate speech which needs to be silenced while yours is altruistic holy fumes.

I think another difference is that as we have continually dumb-ed down society (sorry, you educators hate the truth) it has become more and more "normal" to silence opinions that don't fit a narrative. The people owning the narrative also own the media, and also own education. Until we have some form of revolt, it will get progressively worse.

Comment No, the theory is broken (Score 3, Insightful) 243

The visa system for workers is completely "save cash for companies", nothing more. If you believe it's a good system in any way, you have either been duped by propaganda or not stopped to consider life without a work visa. So ask yourself, what happened _before_ we had worker Visas? Simple, people immigrated to the US. If someone had a special set of skills and knowledge, companies could pay the costs and do the work to get the immigration complete quickly. The US Government has embassies and a Military for exactly the purpose of accomplishing safety.

Congress needs to do it's job, but so you we. Repeating bullshit does not fix things, understanding problems is the start. Many of our problems were caused by people trying to game the system under the guise of altruism.

Comment Re:This! (Score 1) 208

I have therefore harmed you by use of words. I took no action except to say and/or write things.

Wrong. You should have paid more attention to what I said, regarding the yelling fire in a theater, because you should have been able to see how you are wrong. In your example the harm was with action, and in particular it is a form of thievery. Slander and Libel have specific legal definitions very intentionally. The "words" used in Slander and Libel are not the problem, and not what makes them illegal. Slander and Libel both require that we have a measurable loss.

If words were the problem we could never speak for fear of harming someone somewhere. You can not possibly defend a claim that "speech" is the problem. Speak all you want. A call to action, such as "run for your life" or "inciting harm to that person'" is more than simply speech.

Here is a hint: The Founders of the US put speech in as a fundamental right very intentionally. There is a whole lot of history where people with the wrong opinion were killed for expressing that opinion, quicker if it might cause someone to lose undeserved wealth. The concept and purpose of the First Amendment is very well thought out and the wording in the first amendment is very intentional.

You might be a smart person, but I don't believe that you are smarter than dozens of brilliant philosophical minds about fundamental philosophical concepts.

Comment Re:This! (Score 1) 208

Haha, the argument failed because you said so? Is that really how logic and reason work in your mind? I don't have to prove you are wrong, I can just claim "fallacy" and you lose., so "you are a fallacy" and I win again! (But I refer you back to the arguments you chose to simply dismiss and not answer if you really want logic.)

Comment Idea owners unite? (Score 4, Interesting) 139

The summary pretty much says it all. The person want's to claim that the "Fireball" used in every game from 1970 to present including all of the big MMOs was from some guy who GG stole from. WTF? In reality, the Fireball goes back many many thousands of years. The "gods" threw fire and lightning. Shot was thrown as well as spears, so guess which one was the spear and which was the shot?

People want to push this idea that if you change a label you somehow "invented" something. Society must owe something to somebody at all times. "You didn't make that!" right? Sheesh. The cynic in me just ignores this concept after lashing out at the idiocy.

Comment Re:This! (Score 1) 208

A slippery slope is perfectly logical and only a fallacy if given as the only proof. Since we have a whole US Government and a century of proof, your claim of slippery slope is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

Extremely poor form and maturity in the attempt to cherry pick the free market example and argument I gave.

Do you have any rational arguments, or just more sophistry?

Comment Re:This! (Score 1) 208

Then by your own words, go sit in a cave for the remainder of your life. Remove your tongue and fingers so you can not speak or write. Never ever attempt to communicate from here on out. Anything you ever say may result in you being harmed, and by your logic it was the fault of the communication. Words caused the murder, the murderer did not cause the murder.

I really don't believe someone could possibly be as mentally slow as you, so I'll treat you as a troll after this post. If you truly happen to believe your own idiocy, seek professional help after disconnecting yourself from the rest of society. Lord knows it may be contagious.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." -- Peter da Silva (at the National Academy of Sciencies, 1965, in a particularly vivid fantasy)