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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:That isn't trustful. (Score 1) 522

No they are stuck in the 1990s
Their rant about Linux is the same argument that was true back in the mid 1990s however Linux has matured sense then.
Some of the biggest business problems they face can be far easier fixed with a partial adoption of Linux.

I am not an open source zealot. But in terms of control, and configurability Linux is superior to Windows. That comment was to try to silence a flood of just to switch to Linux posts.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 288

You don't have any natural rights to be free from tigers or from gravity. But you DO have the natural expectation that another rational being will understand that if they attack you, they are waiving their own claim on living peacefully. That you don't grasp this is pretty amazing, really.

You'll find that your idea of "rights" disappears quite quickly as soon as any functioning society breaks down.

My "idea" of rights exists at any scale and under any circumstances. That's the entire point. Irrational people do indeed look to take advantage circumstances in which they feel willing to take the chance that their use of violence will go unchallenged because of unpleasant or unexpected circumstances. Which doesn't change the fact that they lose their claim to life when they deny you yours. That's the right you naturally have: to use (or have used on your behalf) the violence necessary to defend your life. Why? Because rational people don't kill other people except in self defense. Those who initiate the violence waive their rights to live in peace.

You're confusing having a right with happening to have the power to defend it at some particular time. These are not the same thing.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 288

Exactly, because in the jungle there are no rights

Oh, I get it now. You think that human beings aren't any different in their cognitive abilities, capacity for reason, and ability to think abstractly and communicate than are, say, tigers or lemurs.

I don't need it, but I need a government to tell others that.

No, you can tell them yourself, and if they are too irrational to digest the concept, and you're too weak to defend against violent, irrational people, then you need a government to help you protect your rights.

Comment That isn't trustful. (Score 4, Insightful) 522

For the enterprise version we really need it predictable so it can be managed. Even if talking to MS is harmless and overall a good thing, it means you are having your computer talk to something you may not want too.

At work we are still on Windows 7 with little chance going over to 10 because of stuff like this. (I would prefer Linux, but our management is stuck in the 1990s)

Comment Re:Well, that's pretty much a textbook violation. (Score 3, Interesting) 106

Is it?
They are not preventing Netflix or YouTube, There isn't any sign that they are slowing down their performance. It is just they are counting the data the same as any other internet download.
The only twist is that Verizon isn't charging for bandwidth for its own service.
You could say the cost of Verizon mobile is being paid from the service fee, and you are actually paying more then than the data cap fees.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 288

So you think that just because you decided to kill them, they didn't have the right to live? That's really your take on things?

If you initiate violence, you are giving up your OWN claim on your right to live. You have the right up until you infringe on someone else's. That's simple, rational stuff. If you can't use reason in your world view, then you are by definition looking at things irrationally. If you act irrationally, and it results in you doing something like killing those 9 people, then you have waived your own right to your life. Do you get that? You don't need a government to tell you that. But if you can't figure it out without a government telling you that, please do the rest of us a favor and don't do anything dangerous like voting.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 288

In a modern society arms are useless.

Really? Then why does every single political leader - across the spectrum, including flaming lefty tyrants, eastern European strongmen, laid-back Scandinavian royalty and elected officials, mayors of cities, etc. - have armed protection at their disposal?

Why do police departments train in the use of arms? Why do militaries, even strictly defensive ones, understand the need to be able to use arms?

It's nice for you that you live in a fantasy world where there is no need for a 90-pound woman to ever defend herself against a man three times her size. Where is it, exactly, that you live that there are absolutely no violent people, no robberies, no rapes, no crimes that endanger lives? Please be specific, and if you would, please link to some reports that show your zero crime rate. Not that you will, of course, because you're full of it, and you know it.

Comment Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score 1) 288

What a load of shit. Without a government, you have no rights. Go live in a jungle sometime...

Wow, you really haven't thought this through, have you? You should.

So, you and another 100 people are in the jungle. 10 of you decide to get together in a group (you know, assembling) and chant something they think is important (you know ... speaking). Who is giving them the perfectly natural behavioral elbow room to assemble and express themselves? The other 90 people who aren't even paying attention to them? The trees? No. These are perfect examples of "natural rights." If some of the other 90 people decide to get together and force those 10 people to no longer gather, or no longer speak their minds, they are infringing on their freedom to assemble and speak.

The US constitution recognizes this, and its first amendment explicitly says that the government can't infringe on that right. There's no place in the constitution that defines the right to assemble or speak ... those are a given. They are self-evident, natural freedoms that can only be limited by other people or groups. Those 10 people don't need the other 90 to do anything in order for their group of 10 to be able to gather and speak. They can do that without any action or permission from anybody. If someone decides to take action shut them up, that's infringement of that right.

Without a government, a society, a rule of law, etc there is no such thing as 'rights'.

Nonsense. Without rule of law, there is no protection of rights. You really think that your right to speak comes from the government? You truly don't understand that it's the government's job to prevent other people (and those same government institutions) from forcibly shutting you up?

Slashdot Top Deals

It is difficult to soar with the eagles when you work with turkeys.

Working...