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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Greed knows no bounds (Score 3, Insightful) 164

The problem is not greed. The problem is government dictating how people should run their lives.

Greed for money or goods is a material form of avarice. The lust to have and perpetually expand power at every opportunity is just a non-material form of greed. The latter is more dangerous by far because it is backed by the police power of government and there is no counter-force causing it to retreat. There is only incremental advancement.

This isn't a road or an essential utility or a national security issue. There is no real public interest here. Ergo, the correct solution would have been to dismiss the suit and tell the plaintiffs that they are free to form their own clone registry. The fact that the current registry is a monopoly would be immaterial because said monopoly excludes clones and thus wouldn't compete with a clone registry. The clone registry would probably find itself entirely without competition. Then those who are interested in cloned horses know where to look while those wanting horses bred the old-fashioned way also know where to look.

Apparently that's just not as fun as forcing people to do what they explicitly don't want to do.

Comment Re:Someone sue for Copyright Infringement... (Score 1) 284

Only if they include content from the original webpage, which it most likely will not. It'll probably be implemented as a DNS redirect, but they might get fancy and just redirect based on URL, but the later requires significantly more hardware, so I'm guessing it's the former. They see you are trying to access www.moviepiratesgalore.com and redirect you to www.mpaa.com instead.

Do you suppose they would also include a transparent HTTP proxy for people like me who run their own caching nameserver?

Comment Re:It's (Score 2) 284

Way too big of segment of our populace has become completely nonproductive, yet richly living by gaming the system.

It remains that way because a much bigger segment has become completely oblivious. This is not mere ignorance. This is a self-protecting, oblivious, zombie-like sleep state. It includes an active hostility towards anyone who suggests that perhaps the increasingly centralized power and wealth of our society lends itself to being controlled by a small elite. You'll be called a tinfoil hatter no matter what evidence and reasoning you produce, not matter-of-factly either but often in an angry hostile fashion, because the zombies are deathly afraid of anything that might pierce a hole in their worldview of denial.

Comment Re:Comcast should not be a content creator! (Score 1) 284

I can't understandy why the FCC allows Comcast to exist as it does today

For the same reason that the FDA allows aspartame despite the mountains of scientific evidence that it's toxic: money.

You just haven't greased the correct palms. If you did, I'm sure you'd have their full support.

Comment Re:Eric Holder (Score 1) 616

"Compare either or both of them to say, the Libertarian party and you'll see what actual differences are."

Yes, the first two look sane. Libertarians are the flip side of Marxists. Nice dorm-room wankfests, but utter train wrecks in the real world.

The point was, that's a political party with actual differences from the ruling factions. They don't disagree on how to implement the same philosophy like the Democrats and Republicans. They disagree about the fundamental philosophy itself.

Also, be aware that there is a serious effort to misinform people about what libertarianism is. The effort is to equate all libertarian thought with anarcho-capitalism. This is intentional. As I said in a post below, when political types cannot logically argue against something, they do their best to portray its supporters as evil and heartless. To give an example, only those who can afford their own armed guards would have police protection under anarcho-capitalism.

I am, for the most part, a libertarian. I want a government that collects taxes. I want that government to regulate industries and stock markets, with the goal of eliminating force and fraud. I want there to be tax-funded firefighters and police. I want there to be something like an FDA, but its sole purpose would be to make sure that no fraud takes place (if you buy a container claiming to have X drug, it actually does contain pharmaceutically pure X drug). I otherwise believe all drugs should be legal with only crimes (such as DUI) being punished. I want all activities confined to consenting adults to be legal, but I want it to be a crime the second anyone who is not an adult or does not consent is affected by the activity. I want almost all of a citizens' experience of government to come from state and local levels, with only issues like national defense and interstate roads handled by the feds.

This "utter train wreck" is, as a poster below pointed out, extremely close to classical liberalism. This same "utter train wreck" is what the USA had during its early history. If that's a train wreck, please derail me.

Comment Re:Eric Holder (Score 1) 616

Considering that modern libertarianism is the closest thing we have to the classic liberalism movement that founded the United States, I don't see where it's an utter train wreck in real world. There are some wings of the party, like anarcho-capitalism, that are clearly as unworkable as Marxism, but most libertarians recognize that a strong (but not large) government is necessary for a civil society.

It's fashionable to portray all libertarians as anarcho-capitalists. Make no mistake, this is not an accident. When those with pulpits cannot rationally argue against a philosophy, they try their level best to demonize it and make its supporters look as evil as possible. It's a standard and ancient tactic.

Comment Re:Eric Holder (Score 2) 616

They argue about teachers' salaried while the kids graduating from high school are dumbasses with no willingness or ability to think independently, since following instructions is what they know. They argue about unresolvable (thus to them, perfect) debates like abortion while the republic crumbles, they may as well play the fiddle too like Nero did. They quibble about how many scraps should hit the floor instead of taking a hard look into why everyone doesn't have their own floor.

The differences exist but they are minimal and designed to give only an illusion of choice. One day something like abortion is demonized and made more difficult, another day this is reversed. Over the course of years and decades the status quo does not change; it only becomes more so. That's what matters.

You may not want to believe that a single entity with two factions has completely usurped all political power in the nation and locked it down like what the guilds of old did to trade, but it's a fact. Consider what Microsoft did to the PC market. That's what the Demican/Republicrats did to politics. Compare either or both of them to say, the Libertarian party and you'll see what actual differences are.

Comment Re:Two parties my ass. (Score 2) 148

Wow. It must be nice to live your black and white world. Mine is so many confusing shades of gray that I find that I am just unable to put suitable labels on most people and things.

The point was that the world is a great many shades of grey, and is therefore not suitably represented by our black-and-white two-party system.

Reading comprehension is gravely on the decline. It's been replaced by an insatiable need to be right at someone else's expense, even if you have to put words in their mouths to do it.

Comment Re:In related news: Domestic spying got the OK (Score 1) 148

I'll blame you for resorting to childish name calling, which makes your point completely disappear as people instantly flag you as just some other ranting lunatic.

Being hypersensitive and too easily offended makes you look like the ranting lunatic. Specifically, it looks like you just don't like the guy and are clutching at straws for some way of taking a jab at him. Whether or not that's actually the case. It also makes you appear to promote this phoney decorum and perfect inoffensiveness that no living human being actually embodies in real life.

Second ... STOP USING FUCKING BOOK REFERENCE WHEN YOU UTTERLY FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THAT PLOT. God, the slashdot meme of all time is for people to reference 1984, while Animal Farm is closer, you still failed to get the actual point. Stop trying to reference it to look smarter.

He referenced a very specific part of it in order to make a joke about how incredibly similar the Democrats and Republicans are on any truly important issue (such as state surveillance). Getting hysterical about that makes him look like a goddamned genius compared to you.

Comment Re:Dupe (Score 1) 148

well there is a need to watch people

A very limited one with an established procedure, yes.

we live in complex societies where a group of jerks can do terrible things if they have enough brains to organize themselves properly.

Yes, we call them politicians. In the past their own disagreements divided them, but they're all uniting under the monied banner of Big Brother.

This does not mean we should let the 'feds' do anything they want but we possibly need a method to do it so as to enable them to look for information when need be and at the same time guarantee privacy whenever that is possible. This all can be done in relatively satisfying way as long as the 'feds' do not want to eavesdrop on all of us real time all the time which apparently is what they want. Eventually we will have to find a common ground.

We have a satisfying way that works for everyone involved. It's called getting a warrant. It begins when the police have reason to suspect that someone has committed a crime. Next, they convince a judge that these reasons are real and not bullshit fishing expeditions. Finally, the judge agrees to provide the warrant and it specifies the persons/places to be searched and the items or activities they are looking for.

The problem is, this system prevents massive surveillance and massive fishing expeditions. That's precisely why the politicians don't like it. But it's a solved problem and has been for hundreds of years now. Don't be fooled by the phoney debate and the appearance of legitimacy (of two coequal sides) it tries to create. All of this is a power grab, pure and simple. It's not necessary to protect anyone and it's not necessary to catch criminals.

Comment Re:IRS Too? (Score 1) 835

On the NZ shows they are almost placid - look up "always blow on the pie" to see what I mean. I am sure they have their rough and tumble, but the sort of assault and direct threats you see on COPS is not present, and even when they go against someone drunk and agro they try and talk their way down and only deploy capsicum spray or tasers as a last defence. The Australian cop shows are too heavy edited to show some of a heaviness the cops use here - I have do doubt they have certain groups they don't mind putting the boot into, but most of the confrontations you see on COPS would be resolved differently on the Aussie cop shows in similar situations.

Not coincidentally, I would assume the average New Zealander has much more genuine respect and admiration for the police than does the average American. Cops sincerely seem to wonder why they aren't respected and welcomed, why average people aren't glad to see them. I wouldn't be surprised if the law-abiding fear the police more than the criminals do.

I think shows like COPS though are the sort of thing that attract the wrong people to policing. The sort that like the power trip and the odd chance to rough someone up under the cover of a badge, rather than actually engaging and protecting the community.

That describes all cops without exception. A large number of cops are directly like this, while all the rest of the cops decide to indirectly be part of the problem by not doing anything about it, giving their own silent consent and approval. It happens so often that there is a term for it: the "blue wall of silence". The otherwise honest cops care about their crooked brethren more than they care about the civilians they're supposed to be protecting.

I forgot who said it, but a long time ago I read a post by another Slashdotter that summed it up. He said that in the minds of cops, there are three kinds of people: 1) Cops 2) Cops' families/friends 3) Suspects. The poster was not joking.

Comment Re: Summary of TFS (Score 1) 835

As a bystander who happened upon this thread, I say: bless you, sir!

It's gotten to the point where the moment I hear "racism", I immediately assume that whoever said it is completely full of shit until and unless proven otherwise. In years and years I have never once seen "racism" called when there was an actual instance wherein a person claimed that one race was inherently and genetically superior to another race. I have, however, seen many instances where it was a cheap, cowardly and dishonest manner of shutting down a debate that said person was losing.

Comment Re:And it's only going to get worse (Score 1) 835

When lawmakers tell police to go arrest bar-betters or marijuana growers, what do you expect them to do, say "that's a bullshit order" and go shoot the lawmaker instead? You wish!

I don't wish they would shoot the legislator (the non-dumbed-down version of "lawmaker" - the media deliberately aims at a 5th-grade reading level, this does not deserve to be emulated). But to say "that's a bullshit order" and refuse to follow it, yes I absolutely want that. The cop in question could then go to the media, or resign, or resign and go tell the media why. Then and only then would police officers EARN the respect they seem to want so badly.

Cops who are mindless myrmidons following any and all orders without question are definitely a big part of the problem. Perhaps they are the single biggest part of the problem. They're supposed to be peace officers who serve their community, not goons or hitmen or jack-booted thugs.

The other huge, glaring part of the problem is the insane idea that any activity confined to consenting adults should ever be considered a crime. The War on Drugs hasn't worked, isn't working, and isn't going to work if the goal is to reduce or eliminate drug use. It works fantastically well if the (unstated of course) goal is to create criminals, scare the public into voting for stricter laws that make no sense, and fill the coffers of the private prison industry, lobbyists, lawyers, and a whole chain of other parasites who profit from criminalizing victimless behavior.

I hate to say it but it's hard to name a body of people more stupid than the American public. Prohibition was the lesson here. In their mindlessness, the American public missed the principle and learned a lesson only about alcohol.

Comment Re:Man the FL state attornies just want to fuck up (Score 1) 569

In terms of why not let juries hear evidence? Well because it may not be relevant and it may bias them. Just because someone did X that people do not like it does not also follow that they did Y. That is why you can't generally mention a defendant's prior bad acts unless they somehow relate to the particular case. So if someone was convicted of robbery in the past, you can't bring it up in an unrelated murder case just to try and make them look like a bad guy.

In your example there, true a previous robbery does not mean a person commited a murder. But it does demonstrate that this person has little or no regard for the law and has a history of committing serious crimes.

Comment Re:If he had only learned from the Simpsons (Score 1) 135

They own the jail. And the courts. And the legislature. And if you want to run for office you take their money and probably not directly from their hands.

So no, none of them in jail.

Atypical /. poster that doesn't know the difference between illegal, and unethical. In turn, doesn't know that many of said changes were made by government in the first place which allowed things to happen. Following with that, banks used the system in place. So you end up with: Illegal no, unethical yes.

Actually the point was that we would have a stronger nation and a better world if there were more overlap and less distinction between illegal and unethical.

And you may wish to brush up on your own history there. The bankers have a long history of trying to control the nation's currency, beginning with Andrew Jackson (who was shot in a pointless duel), again with Abe Lincoln (who was assassinated after issuing interest-free greenbacks), and finally succeeded with the current Federal Reserve system. Incidentally, Kennedy wanted to revert back to government-issued currency.

Banks funded the politicians who put the system in place. You're an asshole to read my post in the most hostile he-must-be-a-total-idiot manner possible and then assume ignorance on my part because of your assumption. This kind of shit and the way it's become so fashionable lately is why intelligent adult discussion on this site is becoming such a rarity.

Slashdot Top Deals

My mother is a fish. - William Faulkner