Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Irony not lost on me (Score 1) 191

Sure, everything is possible with BSD, but it requires a lot more good will to keep it going - the default when private companies get involved is not that they have to contribute back and you leave open this massive opportunity for the managers and executives of the programmers involved to say "no we don't want you sending out those modifications" (itself, a problem for those programmers since they can't build up that public credit).

With GPL, since there's no choice, the problem is closed - no one has to be convinced.

Comment Re:Go home Debian, you're obviously drunk (Score 1) 362

The underlying complexity of upstart has no bearing on whether or not it's "easier".

I love Upstart - SysVinit might "work" but that's for some definition of "work". Its very difficult to tune it, it's difficult to figure out how it's meant to function, and it is utterly obtuse at managing dependencies.

Upstart solves that in an excellent way: I write upstart conf file, and set it's start conditions. Upstart does the rest automatically. It's not completely perfect yet (for example, I'd really like to see some system to add machine-specific modifiers to upstart "start on" stanzas to ease when you have a non-standard filesystem layout or the like) but it's a heck of an improvement that's very easy to comprehend. The "cruft" is the left over need to support SysV init.

Comment Re:Irony not lost on me (Score 1, Insightful) 191

GPL does one very important thing well: it keeps the community alive. As long as people are modifying GPL code, they're obliged to contribute those modifications back.

The problem with the BSD license is, as soon as Apple feels they have the market sewn up, those patches are going to stop flowing very quickly and probably not for the most rational reasons - remember, it's managers and executives who make these decisions, not coders.

Comment Re:Shocking (Score 1, Interesting) 267

Actually it is considered unacceptable for allies to spy on each other's heads of state. Countries are not supposed to treat their friends this way.

On the subject of the French government's surprise, it isn't because French citizens are being spied on like the summary says. It is that there is mass surveillance of millions of French citizens by another friendly member of NATO.

Of course it's considered "unacceptable". Because the sheep (in this case, tech nerds) just love to lap up the righteous indignation of having their privacy violated, while simultaneously thinking wikileaks is the greatest thing ever (you know, the organization headed by the guy which decided there wasn't too much danger disclosing the names of allied informants in warzones in Afgahnistan and Iraq).

Meanwhile, anyone who can do it is doing it and those who can't are trying to.

Comment Re: The wrong signal? (Score 1) 214

That is one thing that really gets under my skin -- when I am visiting with someone (i.e., I took the effort to go over to their space, whether it is a co-worker's office, or visiting with family), and their phone rings. No matter what we're in the middle of talking about, that phone call always gets priority.

I had this sort of issue with one particular boss. He would constantly place our conversations "on hold" so that he could take a phone call. He got the point though when I left his office during one such interruption and called him on the phone so that we could continue the conversation.

You realize of course that just because you go into someone's space, you don't automatically get priority? It's equally as invasive as a phonecall, arguably more so.

Comment Re:If all this is true (Score 3, Insightful) 391

Because it's a town full of people with specializations in a growth field (so they think its as easy for anyone else as they perceived it to be), and then they became rich so now there worldviews will never be challenged, nor will they ever experience any of the issues anyone else ever does.

As was noted in an article on the Great Depression, perspective colors everything: if you were rich and didn't lose everything, and lived in the right neighbourhood then "there were no bread lines".

Comment I'd love a scaled down version... (Score 3, Interesting) 228

$27,000 is pretty steep. If you could scale something down so you could say, dispose of household greenwaste through it and generate power to feed the grid for a few hours a week, you'd really be on to something. Though this is in a big part because I've always dreamed of having my trash go straight to an incinerator...

Comment Re:Thank goodness (Score 2) 999

The staffers being forced onto the ACA is functionally equivalent to being employed by an employed who doesn't provide health insurance. Staffers do not earn the big bucks, so they would normally qualify for the subsidy as well.

Some teaper later realized it would be kind of bad if they ended up saving money on this and it all worked out ok, and that couldn't be, so clearly they had to special exemption all the staffers from the ACA subsidies they would be entitled to at any other employer.

Comment Re: Good. (Score 1) 699

No, no one is forcing anyone. But they are giving them very bad advice.

You're also applying probabilities badly.

The probability of complications in a pregnancy might be very low. But what matters is the probability of negative outcomes once you have a complication.

Home birthing is already biased against problems because generally people are advised not to do it, people who are likely to have complications are strongly advised not to do it. But all that is ignoring the actual, pertinent issue: if something goes wrong what have you changed about the ability to respond to it?

The types of risks we don't worry about are the ones where if they are realized we can do very little about normally. Everything else, we take every step possible to manage how we'll react to a problem when it happens, not if it happens.

Comment Re:Still faster / easier to apply than it used to (Score 1) 382

In Australia we tax cigarettes and alcohol steeply, and there's moves to tax high sugar products for exactly this reason.

Are you f*cking serious? Do you actually think that the obesity epidemic in Australia is going to be addressed by "taxing high sugar products"?

No I think it will bring in revenue which can be used to offset costs to the healthcare system incurred from obesity.

To your other point, you listed a whole bunch of enormously expensive procedures and then said "but who decides!?" Well apparently it was decided by your own personal finances, since your limited coverage definitely won't pay for any of those things - if it pays for anything at all, since the insurance company's first action when you make a claim is going to be to try and deny and drop you.

Slashdot Top Deals

This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks.

Working...