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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The United States Voted For That Declaration (Score 1) 261

The founders of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had, at the time, just faced down a global fascist hegemony, which made those rights seem just and proper and self-evident for great peace and wellbeing.

Now those founding states are becoming a global fascists hegemony ... they're not so keen on them.

The founders of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had, at the time, just finished carpet-bombing large parts of Europe and Asia, and imprisoning their own citizens for the crime of having the wrong ethnic background.

It's not that the countries "aren't keen" on the declaration - it's that the modern interpretation isn't exactly what the drafters had in mind. Kinda how the founders of the US were able to speak about inalienable rights while simultaneously being OK with slavery.

Comment Re:So now that the UN said it, (Score 1) 261

No, it just means that your country has more in common with countries like Iran or Soviet era Russia than you'd like to admit.

All I see is another difference: the UN criticizes the US while completely ignoring far, far worse abuse in Iran and Soviet era Russia.

Did you know that the US is one of only 3 countries that haven't ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? The other two are Somalia and South Sudan.

Oh no. You're telling me that the US hasn't ratified a worthless piece of paper which contains no actual enforcement mechanisms and would make zero difference to any US policies? That's horrible. Next you'll be telling me that nations which have ratified it don't actually do a damn thing to abide by it! Say it aint so!

Comment Re:Love KDE!! (Score 1) 108

I.e., do you use it on your work machine [if you use Linux at work]?

I work for the government, which unfortunately means no linux on the workstations :(

I use BTRFS at home for my primary computer. On my home server I use a combination of BTRFS and ZFS, primarily because BTRFS doesn't have stable support for RAID5/6 yet (and because I've been using ZFS for 5 years now and it would be difficult to switch without first buying 10 new hard drives).

I also have a few BTRFS USB-sticks which I use for freelance work (and occasionally troubleshooting at work, when nobody is looking). They're 16 or 32 gb each, with multiple OS's installed on them (eg. a couple basic Ubuntu-based distros, plus Kali, Caine, etc.). Thanks to dedup I can fit 5-6 different large distros on a 16 gig stick and still have 6-ish gigs left over.

All that said, I've yet to run into any problems with the current versions of BTRFS. All of the various setups I just described have been running without a hitch.

Was your race-condition due to running out of disk space? I remember a problem like that from a while back ... you couldn't delete any files to free up more space because the deletion needed to write to disk and couldn't. As far as I know that was fixed ages ago. I actually tried to replicate it recently, but couldn't.

Comment Re:Love KDE!! (Score 1) 108

From what I've heard btrfs is the bomb!! I'd love to try it.. but theres only so many hours in the day...

Yeah, took me a while to get around to trying it also. I'm very glad I did. Deduplication and snapshots are awesome features to have.

. Not gonna try to migrate ext4 over (if its even possible).. THAT really would be "working without a net", I'd guess..

Actually you can do an in-place conversion from ext4 to btrfs as long as the volume is unmonted (ie. boot off a CD or USB). It's pretty much instantaneous, and even provides you with a means to roll-back to ext4 if you're unhappy. You may have to update some boot files after though ... can't remember if I had to or not.

Of course any filesystem conversion is inherently risky, but I've yet to see an ext4 to btrfs conversion go wrong. Still, it would obviously be safer to start fresh or at least have a current backup.

Comment Re:An "unread email address"?? (Score 1) 277

More to the point, it's the Right Thing to do, because the *privilege* of occupying a chunk of Internet resource comes with the *responsibility* of being contactable if bad things are emanating from it.

Bullshit, straight-up.

The right of all humans to communicate freely with one another - and to avoid communicating with those they don't want to - trumps archaic administrative nonsense about the accuracy of a DNS record as enforced solely through US hegemony over the internet.

Once upon a time, if you had a problem coming from a domain, you would contact the admin as a peer, explain the situation, and he'd put the smack-down on whichever of his users had screwed up. Today? Even at the likes of Sony they admit they don't monitor it, so why bother having it there at all? If you have a problem coming from a domain today, you either report it to the FBI (if a credible attack), or you blacklist them at the router (if a mere nuissance). The days of getting things done on the internet through the mutual respect of admins ended a looong time ago.

Comment Re: Black hole? (Score 3, Informative) 277

here's the law. you want me to do any of your other homework for you?

Not the GP, but yeah, I do - Can you explain what an anti-domainsquatting law that specifically deals with trademarks and identity theft, and absolutely nothing to do with simply giving fake info to a registrar, has to do with your original claim that giving ACCURATE contact info counts as US law?

Now, ICANN can enforce its policies on the registrars themselves, simply by virtue of the fact that a registrar requires ICANN's continued blessing to operate. But the only recourse they have about (non-identity-stealing) fake registration info comes down to taking the domain away from you. For someone like Sony, that might look like an end-of-the-world scenario. For someone who just wants a named place to stick stuff online for my own personal use? Meh, worst case, I've lost $10-$15 and I have to wait three days for a new domain to propagate (and not always even out the money - Much to my surprise, I actually had GoDaddy refund me when I flatly refused to send them a photocopy of my license, three months into a registration).

Comment Re:An "unread email address"?? (Score 1) 277

If the address was unread now, it must have been monitored originally.

Not necessarily - I have a domain. It has a "real" administrative contact email (a throwaway GMail account). I haven't checked it since I had to confirm it as valid (the registration just autorenews - Pssst, SCEA, you live off subscription models, ever thought of using the same damned idea to keep your domains/certs/etc active?).

Administrative contacts for a domain amount to nothing more than a pre-confirmed spam address. Why the hell would anyone use an address where they actually have to suffer through reading the crap that comes in?

Slashdot Top Deals

You will be successful in your work.