Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:PC is necessary in today's world (Score 1) 665

Putting reasonable limits on what people can say to one another is a good idea in my opinion.

And who do you propose should get to decide what is reasonable? Are we going to have to put up with "Common Sense Speech Control" bullshit now? Everyone shutting the fuck up and minding their own goddamn business is reasonable in my opinion; how about you?

Comment Re:Tiered Pricing? (Score 1) 173

Would it make sense to price power per kilowatt usage blocks?

Tiered pricing can work to keep usage lower for people who can actually vary their usage and whose profits aren't tied almost directly to energy used. These miners have a pretty fixed energy requirement and the only way to reduce energy consumed is to scale back on the processing, lowering the potential for profit. The whole scheme also relies on sufficient existing capacity, which appears to be an issue here. Tiered pricing can be used to lower demand, but if that demand still exceeds generating capacity they'll have to shell out $$$ for more equipment, which comes at a far greater cost than just running existing plants at a higher load.

Comment Re:Not for sale in the state of California. (Score 3, Informative) 251

CA is too big of a market to lose, so they'll just make 49-state and CA-only SKUs, as they have with cars, motorcycles, lawnmowers, weedwhackers, etc, due to CARB and their fuckstickery. We even have CA-only guns (M&P Shield CA-compliant model comes to mind). Nothing new to see here, comrades.

Comment Re:Just fight it (Score 1) 353

Since this bill is in the state legislature, I'm not so sure I'd call a four or five hour round trip an easy way to skirt the law for Syracuse residents.

Here in Los Angeles, you can easily spend that much time stuck in traffic driving from one end of the county to the other and back. A single 4-5 hour trip to purchase a phone that is secure from government intrusion isn't completely out of the question. Depends on how much you value your rights, I suppose.

Comment Re:Just fight it (Score 1) 353

Fuck it. Apple and Google should just accept market share loss and tell NY to go fuck itself. Maybe then the locals would complain and and fight to have the bill abolished.

Good luck with that. Smith & Wesson and Ruger have both done the same thing in California due to the "safe guns roster" horseshit, and nothing has budged. At least NY is small enough that you can just drive over the border into another state and buy your contraband iPhone to skirt the law, which will be the most likely outcome if this bill is passed.

Comment Re:Not only right, it's important (Score 1) 257

A person who videos INSTEAD of rendering aid, when their aid is needed, is a shithead.

But what do you expect? 100 people to all somehow help?

If you're not helping, get the hell out of the way and go stand on the sidelines. There's no need for a crowd of people to gather around like vultures just to stand there recording it with their phones. We've all seen those videos by now, there's really no reason to keep seeing the same thing over and over. I'm all for the first amendment and the peoples right to be informed and express themselves, but can we at least pretend to have even a shred of compassion and respect for others? Can we not be decent human beings anymore, and perhaps one person can muster the courage to put down the phone and walk away instead of gawking at someones final moments?

Comment Re:Law Enforcement Doesn't want the Technology (Score 2) 555

Because there's a better ROI on the energy being spent on smart weapons? And as another user pointed out, here's an example splashed across the national news today:

"The alleged assailant was armed with a 9mm Glock 17 that was reported stolen from the home of a police officer in 2013."

So do tell me exactly how much effort and how far up the river we would have had to go to stop that from happening vs just making a stolen gun become a useless lump of metal? Because we can do the latter just as easily as we could limit cars from speeding. The problem isn't a technical one, it's a "but muh freedoms!!!!!11!" one.

ROI on a product that next to nobody actually wants? It seems to me the only people really pushing for smart guns are people who are against guns, don't understand guns, or are smart gun manufacturers/researchers. There are already smart guns on the market, and they are not selling well. So a cop doesn't properly secure his weapon and it's stolen? That has nothing to do with smart guns. Police aren't exactly pounding on the doors of manufacturers demanding they sell them smart guns for duty use, so the odds of that stolen firearm being one even if they were widely available is very small. And yes it is very much a technical problem. Making a gun that fires 100% of the time for only one person is exceptionally difficult. I've seen the development of them over the years, and it's not as simple as you might think. Things like gloves, blood, special rings, a silly watch you have to type a password into.. they all leave massive holes in security and reliability. Nevermind your bit about freedom; it's your choice to not exercise yours, but please don't support the erosion of mine.

Comment Re:Law Enforcement Doesn't want the Technology (Score 1) 555

Or he could have run her over with a car, truck or steamroller. Or dropped a gun safe on her head when she was sleeping, or drowned her in a toilet.

You're right, the problem is too hard to crack so we shouldn't even try. If we can't come up with a perfect solution that will save everyone, then let's not bother trying to save anyone.

How about we spend more time and energy focused on the root problem instead of the one way some people wind up dead? Why are these women in abusive relationships? Why are these men abusive? Can we not do something to stop the violence, and not just the 'gun violence'? It seems so popular to blame guns as the root of all evil, but there's usually a very long and sad story leading up to the point where someone is killed by someone they know. Can we not stop these things before they get to the point where murder is even in the picture? You can spend all the time you want advocating smart guns, that's your right and more power to you, but how many women (and men) are murdered every year by someone elses gun or another method all together? Time and energy is finite, why don't we spend it somewhere further up the river?

Comment Re:Law Enforcement Doesn't want the Technology (Score 2) 555

I guess you missed the part where that lady bought a gun to defend herself against her abusive husband who then took it out of her hands in a struggle and shot her with it. Would you care to explain how any of your snark addresses that?

My comment was in general terms regarding domestic violence. Because this one woman was killed with her own weapon in no means smart gun technology would have saved her, or anyone else. Perhaps he comes back with his own weapon later, or merely beats her to death with her own smart gun. This woman is dead because a man wanted to kill her. If he had removed a smart gun from her, she would have been murdered just as easily by other means as she was equally as defenseless. This woman's purchase of a weapon, and hesitation to use it, lead to her death by her own firearm. It did not lead to her own death in general, as it appears this man was bent on killing her anyway. The end result was the same, although some choose to convolute the issue by implying that smart gun technology would have prevented her demise.

Comment Re:Law Enforcement Doesn't want the Technology (Score 1) 555

I should clarify. You stated:

> Smart guns will not prevent your abusive spouse problem.

Can you expand on that? So explain how the abusive spouse would have put a bullet in her short of taking the magazine out and stuffing it down her throat.

He brings with him one of the 300 million other guns currently available in this country. She may have not been shot with her own weapon at that particular point in time, but if he wanted to kill her he's going to kill her. Who is to say he wouldn't have just beaten her to death with it, had it been a smart gun? Class acts like that aren't easily stopped when they see red. She should have shot him when she had the chance; don't pull your weapon unless you're going to immediately use it. It's not there to dissuade someone from doing something, it's your last line of defense when your life is in danger. Pull it and use it, or don't.

Comment Re:Law Enforcement Doesn't want the Technology (Score 2) 555

I dunno about you but I'd gladly take the tradeoff of a gun that fires 99.999% of the time when I want it to if it also fires 0% of the time if someone wrestles it out of my grasp or some less responsible member of the household somehow manages to get a hold of it and starts messing around with it.

Or the abusive spouse problem:

Smart guns would prevent that.

So perhaps you should properly secure your firearms if there are others in your household at any time that may do something stupid with them. Safes were invented eons ago; there's no need to bring modern technology into the equation. Smart guns will not prevent your abusive spouse problem. There are already 300+ million regular guns in existence in this country alone. You'd have to somehow get rid of all of those, and then completely prevent some abuse asshole from getting his own smart gun. Good luck with that. More technological solutions for a societal problem.

Comment Re:First world problems... (Score 1) 227

Now, people don't expect truly "UNLIMITED" data.

I do. If you sell me unlimited data it had better be unlimited, not "Unlimited (tm)", In the same way I'd expect that if I purchased airfare from LAX to ATL, you wouldn't dump me off in DFW and call it squaresies. If you take 100% of my money, you had damn well better deliver 100% of what you sold me. If you didn't really mean unlimited, find someone with a more comprehensive vocabulary that can more accurately describe the product you're actually selling.

Slashdot Top Deals

Egotist: A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me. -- Ambrose Bierce