Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:What is confusing? (Score 1) 336

If google maps lead people to drive off a cliff I would applaud them for helping eliminate people too stupid to realize that even if the map tells you to drive off a cliff that its still not a good idea. And I don't pity people who run apps from an untrusted source and get burned. I understand where you're coming from but the reason this software is being distributed is because people want the functionality. Don't send a C&D, come up with your own solution which should be that much better being it's authorized and verified with all the cozy protections from coming with the google brand attached.

that's the real problem, cyanogen is becoming a better brand than google, and that's what they're trying to stop.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 425

N. Dakota and Germany may appear to be on the same latitude, but that doesn't mean they get the same amount of sun. weather conditions and topography play a large part in that. And since germany imports the majority of their panels, it would make sense that they would have a surplus, since they didn't pay the generation costs. Since the repayment period is close to 20 years on solar panels in that latitude. that means that GW that you so proud of caused 20 GW of pollution at some point of time.

I'm a free market capitalist, and as such, understand why this is a bad idea. There are internal and external costs to a product, and the free market has been shown to be a very good regulator of internal costs (cost of product to the user) but not very good at external (cost of product to society). Therefore it's the governments job to come up with a way to internalize those external costs (pollution and health hazards in this example) in the form of taxes or other disincentives.

the problem is that with cap and trade, you don't take an integrated approach to the problem. it doesn't change the equation. truly clean tech is cost effective over the life cycle. the problem with clean tech is it's capital intensive, requiring a company to save before adopting and what cap and trade does is harm the ability of companies to come up with that capital.

I'm not against a pollution tax. but I think it should work based on inspections and targeted cuts. if a company can cut their output and demonstrate it has taken measures to reduce emissions by x%, then they don't have to pay. otherwise tax by output. Then the dirtiest players pay the most making them the most motivated and everyone still needs to clean up. Cap and trade only focuses on making direct pollution costs high, but as long as some power is generated from fossil fuels, being wasteful with clean energy consumes resources that would otherwise go offsetting production by non-clean sources.

so again it's unfair. Just cause I live in AZ or Cali where there's an abundance of clean power, doesn't mean i should be able to use as much as I want. Two companies running at the same efficiency consuming the same power should not be taxed differently. cap and trade doesn't effectively internalize the expense cause it doesn't focus on cutting consumption. and until we have a policy that does that, it's going to have negligible effect.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 3, Interesting) 425

you can't just say "oh well then they'll be motivated to make an investment in solar and wind" and that will solve anything

solar and wind are not blanket solutions. in places like North Dakota, a solar panel never repays the energy it takes to make it! it does nothing for the environment then! You can't put solar panels in Alaska where it's dark half the year round. And wind turbines might have problems in the winter.

goes back to my point, it's HARD to implement those technologies in those states and with a cap and TRADE system clean states tend to benefit ALOT by selling excess credits to states in the bread basket. it's not about the environment. it's about one state with a ton of money trying to screw a bunch of other states who are less fortunate. It's one thing if they had alternatives, but wind and solar don't work everywhere.

this plan takes money from the states that need the most development in terms of clean energy and gives it to the states that need it the least, which is a very inefficient way of doing things! Now the states not only have to pay a tax, but develop technologies that work with their climate, and do so with less resources then were available before the plan. my opinion? what will happen is they'll end up switching to bio fuels and drive the price of food way up, because they don't have other options. Then we all lose.

Comment Re:The thing about a carbon tax... (Score 1) 425

Most greening techniques are capital intensive, solar takes 5-10 years for ROI, LED bulbs require about 5 years as well. Insulating your home, replacing your windows, it all takes money up front. so although I agree mother nature doesn't care if you have a job, it might be more effective to get the economy out of the quagmire it's in before trying to green it.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 2, Interesting) 425

no we don't have one. the reason why it's been defeated every time is that the proponents of the bill (typically California, Washington, Arizona, Nevada) receive a large portion of their power from hydroelectric power. So they have renewable sources available. Essentially this is a tax on the breadbasket states who have less clean resources available to them, and who's economies are based more on industry then the states on the coasts. It's been proposed several times, and several times defeated. Cap and trade makes sense if alternatives are more evenly distributed, but unfortunately they're not.

Comment Shiny package managment system? (Score 3, Insightful) 83

Isn't an "app store" just a shiny package management system for small programs? 99% of linux distros have this already. What, we need to skin it prettier and put it on the web? That should be easy enough. I don't know why we need to copy something from apple when the idea creating a repository for programs and working out interdependence started in the *nix environments. Getting useful usable programs onto the computer is the main barrier for adoption. Cost has nothing to do with it, they'll put out the cheapest item that will sell. If linux won't sell netbooks, then they won't use it.

Comment Re:So can you sue Google for finding my ISO files? (Score 1) 289

Technically, there's nothing in the law against it despite DCMA safe harbors.

Ever since the Grokster case got settled, courts have been ruling for "contributory infringement" on a I-know-it-when-I-see-it type basis. Usenet actively promoted the fact that it had lots of infringing content and used that as a selling point in it's business model. And despite disagreeing with the model, they are EXACTLY what is pictured and depicted as "contributory infringement". Until we can reverse it, if your going to run a file sharing site or network, then don't advertise you're doing so.

Comment Re:What about epigenetics? (Score 3, Insightful) 78

We're not looking for a complete work up here. Genetic testing becoming more available and consumable is a good thing as it should spur development in the industry. Additionally there are a lot of conditions for which people can have genetic predisposition and knowing that predisposition may change their treatment and behavior in ways that may actually save money. Being able to better focus and tailor one's individual medical care is a good thing and will hopefully lead to long term cost savings. I hope genetic testing for serious, long term disabilities that can drive up end of life care becomes common place as it could be used as a mitigation for rising cost of treatment.

Comment Re:Massacre or fight for freedom (Score 3, Informative) 99

Ok, so he hung 200 people publicly a year. From 1991 to 2003 is 12 years so 2400 people.
Then add a conservative 5000 (Probably closer to 10000 since many of the injured died of complicationis) from the Halabja poison gas attack and we're just getting started. That was just one part of the Al-Anfal Campaign where he killed roughly 100,000. That's just violence against the Kurds which is the most well documented. And the hangings don't account for the shootings and killings post Gulf War when he quelled the Shiite Rebellion. Body count puts the Iraq war collateral damage total at about 100,000. So in fact we haven't killed as many Iraqis as Saddam.

Motivations for war aside, the operation has been exceedingly poorly executed, and may be inexcusable. But lets not delude ourselves into thinking "Well, Saddam wasn't that bad". He was worse.

Comment Re:I'm nervous about this (Score 1) 194

I'm not saying that the code shouldn't be released. I'm saying there should be some remediation prior to it being released. Cisco should have to release a new version of their firmware that is completely closed source, or they should offer new routers running open software. I'm saying that everyone is so concerned about getting the code out there NOW and I'm of the opinion that's not necessarily the responsible thing. If I was a major Cisco client, I'd be furious about this. But no one's talking about that.

I'm not defending Cisco, I'm not saying the FSF is wrong. I'm saying there's a big part of the story that seems to be missing and should be discussed.

Comment Re:Yeah, thank god Windows is closed source. I (Score 2, Insightful) 194

You misunderstand. Just because you release the code, it doesn't magically become as secure because it's "open source". Open Source is secure because it goes through a process. A process this code didn't see. That process allows for corrections when errors are made. This process takes time. And what I said in my original post is that there is going to be a window between when we, the community, improve the quality of product up to other open source standards, and when the source code is released, during which time there is an elevated threat.

Nearly all software products have vulnerabilities. With open source products, those vulnerabilities get fixed faster, making them more secure. They get developed in ways that are security conscience because the community is watching. With closed source vulnerabilities get discovered slower, but get fixed slower so there's no gain. Additionally, they don't go through the same focus and scrutiny during development, so they tend to have more vulnerabilities at release. Taking something that was developed in secret, widely implemented and then divulging the source doesn't get you any of the benefits of either. Vulnerabilities and exploits are near instantly apparent and discovered, and you don't have the benefit of open development.

If just having the source open to everyone is more secure, then don't ever bother to update firefox or whatever browser your running ever again. Keep doing your banking online with it. Knowing something has security holes is one thing. Telling the world what those security holes are is another thing, especially since there's not development process ready to respond to the vulnerabilities yet. This is like taking a browser that hasn't been patched for two years and pushing it to every third computer in the US. There's going to be a race to patch the system to make it secure and exploit the vulnerabilities and I'm not sure that's something I like.

Comment I'm nervous about this (Score 5, Insightful) 194

Cisco releasing the source code for thousands of routers doesn't strike me as being a good thing. I mean it's one thing to develop in an open environment and being open from the start, and I agree security though obscurity is bound to fail but as someone running Linksys routers on my network, I would expect there to be some stepped process, as I don't trust Cisco was totally competent in their development. Imagine if windows source was suddenly made available to the masses, the time it would take to identify, patch, and distribute a fix vs the time it takes to just identify and exploit is a significant window of vulnerability. Security through obscurity doesn't work because it assumes no one will ever find out and people will. But dissemination of that information takes time. Discovery of defect takes time. Opening the source of a previously closed product greatly reduces that time and therefore intensifies the threat. Overall this will lead for a much stronger product but I fear what is going to happen in the first few weeks.

Slashdot Top Deals

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.