Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:zero sum game (Score 1) 555

There's a difference between defending dogma and noting that someone appears to be making gross generalizations. I did the latter, and if anything you seem to be persisting in defending your own dogma at this point.

I'll ask another question. Do you believe there might be value in sitting down over a cup of coffee with someone like me, with my admitted political leanings (again, not to be confused with the particular beliefs of anyone else), and just having a nice afternoon talk about whatever comes up? That's how I prefer to have these sorts of discussions, as it seems the participants gain the opportunity learn more about who the other person actually is as a whole being.

So again, my objective in the previous post was quite removed from any attempt to defend or assail any particular approach to politics. Instead, it was to see if you might be interested in slowing down for a moment to think of someone as a person, instead of a cog in some political collective. I look forward to your reply.

Comment Re:zero sum game (Score 1) 555

Please reference this comment thread, which contains a comment I posted in response to what some might perceive as an "attack" on Ayn Rand (a person who undoubtedly doesn't care a bit about it, as she's dead). In broad strokes, if pushed to classify myself in terms of political affiliation, I might reasonably be described as strongly identifying with many of the principles espoused by the Libertarian party.

Based on that single comment thread and my open admission of apparent LP affiliation, I'm curious whether you would presume to make a summary judgement of my character per your post. In different terms, I wonder if you would not only believe that you have a deep understanding of me as a whole person based on this limited criteria, but would also act upon that belief if you believed it would serve to reinforce your particular worldview. I look forward to your reply.

Comment Re:Randroid Alert (Score 1) 361

I'm probably wasting my time here as you're posting AC, and it's certainly offtopic, but I feel compelled to respond to this. What you've posted is a perfect example of rejecting a message you would otherwise hold in esteem because you have a personal problem with the core philosophy of the messenger, followed by substitution of a message with that is quite nearly functionally equivalent, yet represents the work of someone you happen to like more.

If anything, I would characterize your behavior as irrational, and thus amusingly at odds with both your reference to meds and the point of both quotes. The end result, at least to my perception, is apparent manifestation of quite an elitist attitude. Are you perchance employed in academia?

Comment Re:SOLVED: Little Boxes (Score 1) 320

That doesn't seem to make any sense. The whole point of multiple DNS servers is to have them distributed across separate hosts and preferably separate networks, but putting them on exclusive hardware doesn't provide any gain unless you're handling a ridiculous number of queries per second (in which case there's no point to virtualizing the servers in first place). That is, unless you actually meant to say you make sure the second sentence applies, instead of potentially saying no other VMs run on hosts that happen to host your DNS servers.

Comment Re:Uh... (Score 1) 236

You seem insecure. It may surprise you that I don't really care whether you served or not, nor do I consider the fact that I did to be all that remarkable in the grand scheme of things. If we're honest, neither of us really matter all that much in the bigger picture. Unfortunately, you seem to be demonstrating an oft-seen reaction to exposure to people who affirm prior service in the context of conversations like these, and I'd guess it's probably based on insecurity stemming from something else in your life. That's too bad, but it is your problem, not mine.

Getting back to the topic of the story, the statement that there was a fuck-up is redundant. That failures occurred is obvious, but the specific nature of those failures and their dependencies are something that neither of us are direct parties to. One of us simply has more subject matter experience here, and is better qualified to point out ignorant and puffed-up speculation on the part of others. Really, the core problem remains that you simply have no basis of experience to speak from. In other words, you don't know what you don't know. That's perfectly okay as long as you can admit it and work forward from there. You don't seem prepared to do that, though.

It doesn't really matter here, but I can't help but note in closing my suspicion that you also wouldn't be prepared to use your closing line in person. Thus, it seems one of us is indeed interested in attempting to prove his manhood, but it isn't me. Have a great day!

Comment Re:Silly copyright notice (Score 1) 76

You're absolutely wrong. Please look up some actual caselaw before continuing to demonstrate your ignorance. I'd invest 15 minutes of my life doing this for you, since you're apparently incapable of doing it for yourself or you presumably would have already done so, but at this point it seems I'm wasting more of my life than is justified by even replying to your post. HAND.

Comment Re:Silly copyright notice (Score 1) 76

The statement itself isn't what's legally binding. Unless explicilty stated otherwise via assignment to the public domain, copyright protection for produced works (such as photographs) is automatic in the United States. As for the rest, you're simply being pedantic, and you got upset when you were called on it.

Comment Re:Will Zimmerman get justice? (Score 1) 848

A 17 year old is a juvenile in the legal sense, but is rarely considered a child, certainly not in the same sense that a 10 year old is a child. There's a substantial difference. There's also a significant chance that Martin would have been tried as an adult for assault had he survived the encounter.

Comment Re:I for one (Score 1) 124

This is one of the things I love most about the Internet. Once the bytes are transmitted and hit storage mediums frequented by a substantial number of souls, the bytes become quasi-immortal. I'll try to remember to perform a search for your post using whatever über (or uber for this venue, c'mon /. it's 2012, let's get with the Unicode program) engine is all the rage ten years from now. In the meantime, thank you for the reminder, and have a great day.

Comment Re:Uh... (Score 1) 236

Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. In general, I agree with your line of thought. My original post was really more intended to illustrate the fact that the GP almost certainly had no operational experience, proper education, or firsthand knowledge of the events to base his statement on. Someone will indeed be found at fault, and it may turn out (as so many things do) to be a cumulative effect of errors on both vessels. Thanks again for the reply.

Comment Re:Uh... (Score -1, Troll) 236

You are privy to neither the objectives of nor the operational timeline of the exercise. In other words, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Let me be perfectly clear: your first mistake was attempting to speak with authority on a topic you have absolutely no fucking knowledge of, and your second mistake was attempting to refute the public assertion of your ignorance with a hollow demand for "insight" that clearly cannot be provided in accordance with universally understood principles of certain oaths involving clearances. Put even more simply, you have no goddamned idea what you're talking about, and things are so much more interesting than you might imagine. Perhaps you should have had the fucking nuts required to wear a uniform. Sadly, you didn't. So instead, try to have a nice day, and perhaps think about giving a bit more thought to thinking before you speak.

Slashdot Top Deals

egrep -n '^[a-z].*\(' $ | sort -t':' +2.0