Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Quality over quantity (Score 3, Insightful) 140

by sobachatina (#47535227) Attached to: The Army Is 3D Printing Warheads

For a long time it hasn't been about how to "kill more people" but rather how to kill "the right people" more efficiently.

We put a huge amount of effort and money into weapon systems that will minimize collateral damage.

As much as it is popular to vilify the US- none of our opponents seem to care as much who they blow up.

Comment: No-ip isn't shady (Score 5, Insightful) 113

I've used No-ip for non-mission-critical dynamic IP services and for domain registration for over 10 years. There's nothing "shady" about them.

They offer a free service that is sometimes exploited by criminals and are very responsive to reports of abuse.

Microsoft not only didn't report these criminals to no-ip- they actually sealed the court order so they could seize the domains before no-ip found out about it.

It boggles my mind that a vigilante corporation can get a court order to simply seize another companies assets.

Comment: Re:First Question (Score 0) 36

by sobachatina (#46707369) Attached to: Interviews: Jonathan Coulton Answers Your Questions

I don't mean to be rude but if you haven't heard of JoCo, at least in passing, then you might consider whether you belong on a site with the tagline "news for nerds".
Code monkey was a meme of sorts among programmers many years ago. I don't know a programmer who hasn't heard of it.
Portal was a huge hit among gamers and the theme song, Still Alive, was talked about in gaming blogs all over the place. I'm not a gamer and I still saw it often.
JoCo has been featured extensively on geek sites and several times on Slashdot because of his unique approach to monetizing his music.

Of course none of this means that you are obligated to have heard of him but it does undermine your first three paragraphs. As an anecdotal counterpoint: I for one was happy to see him interviewed and interested in his responses. You can't expect to be interested in every person they interview.

Comment: Re:Be good. (Score 5, Insightful) 312

by sobachatina (#40328267) Attached to: Online Activities To Be Recorded By UK ISPs

I hate it when people say this. At the risk of feeding a troll...

You might be doing nothing wrong and still have plenty to hide from some people. I don't consider going on vacation wrong but I don't broadcast to the internet that my house will be vacant.

What if you don't support the controlling political party? You might value some anonymity.

Sure if the government, and all the individuals within it that have access to that data, are always perfectly honorable you might never have a problem. Does this seem like a likely situation for you to stake your life or wellbeing on?

Giving that much power to the government is just begging one power hungry corrupt individual to abuse it to gain more power.

Comment: Re:He's a marine, not a soldier. (Score 2) 141

by sobachatina (#36503576) Attached to: Soldier Re-Grows Leg Muscle After Experimental Procedure

You are making a semantic argument that only makes sense to someone in the marines.

Soldier is a generic term that refers to someone in an army (army here is in the general meaning and not the US Army branch of the military). Marine would be a subset of that. Someone in the marines could be very accurately called a soldier. The only reason someone would object to conflating the terms would be if they were in the US marines and were overly sensitive to the rivalry with the US army.

To use your analogy it's more like a programmer getting offended at being called an IT worker because he is NOT JUST A DBA!

I suppose you could make an argument that since the marines are simply a branch of the navy he should have been called a sailor but that is a bit of a stretch.

Comment: Re:Let's bring everyone on the same page (Score 1) 1505

by sobachatina (#34538340) Attached to: Judge Declares Federal Healthcare Plan (Partly) Unconstitutional

Excellent post. Even though I don't necessarily agree with you I appreciate the well thought out perspective.

One criticism: I am tired of hearing the argument used "Car insurance is mandatory in the USA." It is most certainly NOT mandatory. First of all- only liability insurance is mandatory. There is no parallel with health insurance.
Secondly a person doesn't have to drive a car and could live quite legally with no car insurance.

Comment: Re:I don't have a cell phone! (Score 1) 307

by sobachatina (#33300678) Attached to: Old (unused) mobile phones I've got hanging around ...

I recommend T-Mobile's prepaid phones.

I use their pay by the minute plan and put $100 on it. The calls are $.10 a minute and don't expire for a year. Even then you can put $5.00 on before the year is out to keep it from expiring.

I use all of 10 minutes a month or so and this is by far the most economical arrangement I have found.

Comment: Re:Sad Clown:( (Score 1) 457

by sobachatina (#33288558) Attached to: Employees Would Steal Data When Leaving a Job

While I respect your opinion and enjoy your comments- I disagree with this one.

Honesty is not a two way street for me. I try to be honest in my interactions regardless of the behavior of others.

Or as I would think of it- why would I give a crooked employer the satisfaction of tainting my character?

Comment: Re:The only absurd part of this...honesty. (Score 1) 260

by sobachatina (#33286788) Attached to: Sell Someone Else's Book On Lulu!

I don't see anywhere in the GP post where he mentions the law or the fear of punishment from it.

I hope I'm wrong but your post seems to be implying that limited term copyright is somehow dishonest.
This is exactly the misconception that the GP post was trying to correct. He is saying that authors cannot own words and that as a society we have granted them something they don't naturally deserve- a temporary monopoly on that expression of human thought.
You seem to be implying that putting pen to paper means that authors naturally and for all time own that portion of humanity and that anyone who thinks otherwise is dishonest. This point of view (while promoted heavily by media corporations in recent history) is not historically accurate and would undoubtedly harm the whole of human art more than it would help the enriched author's descendants (or publishers).

Pointing out the temporary nature or history of that very-unnatural monopoly by no means implies dishonest intent.

If I misunderstood your post I sincerely apologize.

"There is no statute of limitations on stupidity." -- Randomly produced by a computer program called Markov3.