Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:maybe because it's not (Score 1) 832

I can't stand Trump either, and you can think what you wish regarding my brain or lack thereof, but I can assure you that many of my socially conservative friends - and I am socially conservative myself (but politically libertarian) - firmly and unwaveringly believe that most if not all Mexicans, most if not all Muslims, most if not all Black people, are eeeevil and seek nothing less than the destruction of "White civilization." Propaganda can create its own reality, and hatred, like any other evil, can and frequently does metastatize. Twitter, being a private company, has the right to give Mr. Trump a platform, or not to, but I would strongly suggest that they should not, and I would also insist that if they knowingly choose to do so, then they are partly responsible, at least morally and ethically and perhaps legally also (18 USC 242-243), for what results. Freedom implies responsibility. I strongly believe in it, but I recognize that even in theory, the one is not possible without the other.

Comment Re:Because that would be unimaginable CENSORSHIP? (Score 1) 832

Sooner or later, whatever replaces this pus-oozing carcass of a "culture" will come to understand that peaceful coexistence on one hand, and the advocacy of things like organized theft, enslavement, or murder on the other, are mutually exclusive. Only one will prevail. Those who do advocate such things ought never be given a platform by any decent or civilized individual, ought never to be paid attention by any decent or civilized individual, and must never be allowed anywhere near the reigns of power. Not even a voting booth. No one is ever entitled to vote away the rights of another.

Comment Re:Hardly surprising (Score 1) 256

The "right-anarchist" viewpoint, which I hold, is that true Libertarians are, or eventually become as I did, what you describe as "right-anarchists," once they come to understand that the existence of monopolistic governments is inherently antithetical to liberty and to the nonaggression principle. We believe in other means of defining and enforcing contracts and property rights, not necessarily drastically different from the systems of laws and courts we have now, except they would be voluntary, decentralized, and competitive. Murray Rothbard is perhaps the best known author to have covered this topic extensively, though there are many others.

Comment Re:And a cure for world overpopulation...? (Score 1) 385

I'm well aware that the "overpopulation" myth is BS and that the limits to earth's carrying capacity, if there even are such limits, have yet to be seriously explored. I'd quibble with a couple things though.

Yes, IMO, we do need "nature," because (a) that is most of what generates much of our oxygen, and (b) it is the most sensible use for much of the land in even a very densely populated world. That some of the most densely populated cities in the world (New York, Paris, Hong Kong, probably others) also find space for beautiful park systems seems to me a strong argument that we need not eliminate "nature" in order to achieve a vastly higher population or population density than we have today.

The problem of pollution will need to be addressed in a sustainable fashion. A large part of that solution will be technology. The U.S. manufactures almost as much as China today, by some measures more, yet it does so far more cleanly, because today, we can afford cleaner methods of production, while China can't. That is not a function of the number of people there, but simply their as-yet lower level of development. When they are as wealthy as we are, they'll be able to afford to produce more cleanly, and they will.

I do not believe that humans have much understanding of climate, frankly, much less that they have much influence over it on a global level. Sufficiently large cities, however, do become heat islands. We will have to use technology, and probably energy (hopefully cleanly and sustainably produced) to deal with this, especially in the parts of the world which are already hot and/or humid. Again, increasing development and hence wealth should help. If the global climate does become significantly warmer, some adjustments will be necessary, of course, but it should actually be an overall help to humanity, not a hindrance, because it will open up vast regions in the world to agriculture that cannot be done in those regions today. (It will of course reduce production in some places as well, but the net effect will be not a loss of total land suitable for agriculture but a huge, huge gain.)

One challenge we will have to tackle: the near-universal human obsession with big governments, nation-states, collectivism, and war. All of those things in their current form are incompatible with life, even life as we know it today, much less the life that could exist on a wealthier, more densely populated, more civilized planet. In fact, IMO, those things constitute the chief impediment to becoming such a world.

Comment Won't happen. (Score 4, Insightful) 385

Most types of cells are programmed to divide only a certain number of times, and then die. There are ways to defeat this programming, but when those occur, the usual result is not immortality, but death via cancer. Wikipedia has an excellent article on telomeres which are one of the mechanisms by which this process occurs.

Comment Re:Why is prostitution illegal in the first place? (Score 1) 390

All of the main east-west streets through the west side of Cleveland - ALL of them - prominently feature prostitutes at varying times of both day and night. It would be difficult to get from my home just outside city limits, to my work or my church, without using several of these streets. The people working them are not particularly aggressive. I've never been approached in 30+ years of living here. But they are there, and to some people, that constitutes a "known problem." (It is a problem, IMO, but not the kind they think, and not for the reasons they think.) If they were to do the same thing here, they would quickly run out of paper and/or postage.

Comment Re:In other news... (Score 1) 486

Actually, I'd argue that it would have been safer in the long run to let another attack or two happen and then NOT respond in any way that would further the goals of the attackers. Eventually they would tire of expending significant resources in exchange for nothing, and the attacks would stop, without any further loss of liberty. In the end there would have been less loss of life as well.

Comment Re:Only one responsible party (Score 1) 486

It's even worse than that. It's public record that both al Qaeda and Daesh were created, armed, and supported by the U.S., to fight the Russians and Assad respectively. That's not even in serious dispute. The disputed fact is whether those groups later turned against the U.S. (that is of course the official explanation), or whether they continue to do the bidding of the U.S. government albeit of course in a way it can no longer officially admit or condone. I strongly lean toward the latter conclusion.

Comment What worked for me . . . (Score 1) 86

YMMV, but I went from 3-4 bad colds a year, to maybe one mild one every other year, when I started supplementing with vitamins C (1000mg/day), D (4800IU/day), magnesium, and zinc. I've been horribly insomniac all my life, but I still never get colds, even though I'm around children all the time, a lot of them get sick, blow their nose or puke on me, etc., and I almost *never* get their colds or GI bugs. Our own kids also stopped getting them when we started supplementing, and they're around sick kids even more than I am. I really do believe that vitamins C and D are things our immune systems need but don't usually get enough of, and that if we do get them, then getting a mild viral infection should be an exceptional circumstance, not a normal one. I'm also not discounting the value of sleep. My extreme lack thereof causes or contributes to many other health problems (depression, anxiety, lack of concentration or short-term memory, obesity, hypertension, insulin and leptin resistance, etc.). However, in spite of all this, and what I would consider generally poor health overall, I almost never get colds anymore. The supplements are cheap, and, in the quantities I take them, very unlikely to cause any other health problems. I strongly recommend them.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 747

Definitely interesting. I find that 90% or more of the legacy code I work on would fail any reasonable test of software quality, but, then, much of it was written by people whose background consisted largely of Visual Basic, and/or were mostly hardware, not software, specialists. I only wish it were easier to convey to top management why it is so vital to manage, or even to acknowledge, the resulting technical debt. Until a large customer complains, they just never seem to get the message, and, by the time that happens, it may often be too late to do much more than band-aid together a crappy workaround that only worsens the underlying problem instead of addressing it.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 747

I read and completely agree with your article about interfaces. I'd rank that principle a close second to KISS (keep it simple....) in terms of its absolute necessity in terms of managing the complexity inherent in all modern systems. But, sadly, I believe Mr. Poettering fails to grasp either one. I don't doubt that he's a good and talented coder, or even that there are streaks of brilliance in his vision for how things could and should work. However, IMO, he demonstrates very little grasp of maintainable architecture or design. Over the years, I've worked with a lot of people a lot like him. In their proper place, they are great assets. However, they need to work under the direction of someone who can see the bigger picture; in this case, the ecosystem Linux inherits from UN*X and how and why it evolved into what it is today. Otherwise, it is my experience that, 100.00% of the time, their work, no matter how brilliant, ends up having to be scrapped and redone, because it solves a different problem than the one that actually exists, and in the process, often creates brand new problems as well. As far as I can tell, no one is managing Mr. Poettering. He is managing himself, and distro maintainers are accepting the result only because it makes their lives easier in the short term. I could be wrong, and I sincerely hope I am, but 25+ years of development experience tells me that this is going to prove to be an even bigger disaster than most of systemd's detractors currently understand, and you nailed much of the reason why: not understanding the concept of robust interfaces with replaceable implementations, Poettering instead creates poor and non-compatible replacements for their functionality, which work well with the rest of systemd, but little else.

Slashdot Top Deals

Just about every computer on the market today runs Unix, except the Mac (and nobody cares about it). -- Bill Joy 6/21/85