Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:So.... (Score 1) 828

Would there be less homicides if all the guns disappeared magically? Almost certainly.

Your conclusion is presumptuous. Humans did a damn good job of killing one another before firearms were invented, and they continue to do so today at a significant rate even when a firearm is not involved.

I hate to put it this way, but most people who would use a gun to commit homicide are not the types to do the job 'by hand'. Guns make it safer for the person committing homicide with the gun ... and much more convenient.

The rate of homicides would certainly go down without the use of guns. It wouldn't hit zero, and would slowly increase after the initial decline, but it would never reach the same rates as when guns were available. I'm not blaming the guns, it's absolutely the people using them. I'm sure the number of accidental deaths would decline if cars were outlawed, but that doesn't mean it's the car's fault.

The vast majority of gun owners are not murderers. Venezuela's ban on guns is the government's way of disarming the citizens so they can continue to chip away at their other rights without the government having to worry about the citizens rising up to fight back.

Comment Re:I can dream... (Score 1, Troll) 91

Hopefully it says "security through obscurity does not work" in big block letters on the first page.

It's what this security guide doesn't say that is important to Apple. I'm betting they left out a few tidbits of information. Not a lot, but just enough to make us think the guide is complete.

Comment Re:Why not hardware manufacturers? (Score 1) 809

If they know what they're doing they're ok. Fedora is doing this for the rest of their users.

Though most Linux users will be brave enough to do this for themselves, those who are on the fence or who want to try something besides Windows may not be willing to futz with the UEFI (formerly known as BIOS) boot config.

Comment Re:Why not hardware manufacturers? (Score 4, Insightful) 809

Good thing Microsoft's way includes a required option in the UEFI setup to turn off secure boot. This whole story is horribly misleading.

So they must turn off secure booting in order to run another operating system. The DMCA implications aside, I'm not sure which is worse for the consumer: a 'secure boot' of Windows or a 'non-secure' boot of any other operating system?

Comment Re:Why not hardware manufacturers? (Score 4, Insightful) 809

I don't understand how Microsoft is as fault here. Isn't it the hardware manufacturers that are locking out everyone but Microsoft? Shouldn't the hw people be the ones to make the platform open?

You have to do it MS's way or they won't let you sell hardware with Windows on it. MS controls the certificates used in the secure UEFI boot process. You either do it MS's way or you do it your own way ... without any MS products to pre-install.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 2) 125

Just such things make me think that the default setting for software created with public money should be released with source code anyhow, barring context-specific reasons that it shouldn't be.

So that countries who have not spent money can use it for free?

I, for one, do not want the overpriced, often delayed, over managed & under performing software my taxes pay for to be 'free' for anyone, any company or any country. Let them overpay and wait for their own.

Comment Re:Unpublished Launches? (Score 2) 167

Unpublished Launches?

In my day those were called secret launches. They all turned out to be weather satellites so none of us were worried.

Don't be surprised if some of the 'tests' actually launch something for the military. It's not like they have to be worried that someone is going to see what they're doing up there.

Comment Re:Good (Score 2) 167

I agree about the safety point. Exploration isn't about safety. When Columbus set out to find a trade route to India he knew some motherfuckers would die on the way over. But he went anyway because he knew there would be some major dubloons in it for him if he made it. Of course it helped that he was backed by a gold-hungry monarchy and not a democracy that would rather vote for free cheese and tax breaks. But I digress.

If governments thought that there was money to be made in space (mining, harvesting, conquering and pillaging, etc) they'd be putting anyone they could into vehicles that were 'good enough' and sending them out to bring back the bounty. In Columbus' day (and for hundred of years after) people's lives weren't worth much. People were even were at risk of being attacked by waring armies or marauders or even their own king's men on a daily basis. Sadly this remains true in some parts of the world.

Slashdot Top Deals

There's no future in time travel.