Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:How does cuba have an embargo (Score 2) 325

Just like Lenin tried to do. The failure was that Lenin didn't have the support of the people and couldn't install a communism with democratic means.

And, being a True Believer, he didn't let a little implementation detail like that stop him. No, sir!

That's the problem with True Believers. They tend to think that the ends justify the means.

Comment Re:How to crush serfs (Score 0) 414

1) take away their guns...

How to take away their guns?

1) Start a database or "registry" so you know who has the guns and what kind of guns they have.
2) Claim that the registry is totally not for purposes of future confiscation

Just like the US federal income tax was a "temporary wartime measure" and the Social Security Number was never, ever to be used as a form of ID.

Comment Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... (Score 1) 337

Also, what is crazy (not humorous, but properly nuts) to one person is not crazy to another. e.g. a petition to deport someone for their views on gun control. Crazy? Yes, I think so, but those putting it up didn't think so. Needs a response? Equally, yes.

I realize that crazy people subjectively believe themselves to be sane. That's why so few of them want to change. The sign of such people is that they get angry and insulting when asked to explain their views. But you would hardly rely on people like this to derive your standard of sanity, unless of course you found them useful for providing a contrast.

In a nation which has the First Amendment, punishing someone for expressing an opinion is objectively crazy. If these people would like to make an attempt to amend the Constitution and remove such First Amendment protections, there is a process for doing so. Until then, not only would deporting someone for a mere view be both crazy and illegal, it is also the classic sign of insecurity shown by small-minded people who feel threatened by opposing points of view. These are not individuals who can stand on the merits of their own reason. These are sheep who must be part of a like-minded flock, to give themselves the illusion of legitimacy by the numbers of other sheep, else they feel alone, isolated, and threatened by the prospect of thinking for themselves.

No one who has sensible views based on solid principles feels a need to persecute and materially harm the lives of others merely for disagreeing. Those who are secure in their well-founded beliefs never deal with dissent by lashing out in such an infantile manner.

Comment Re:What happens when it gets to 70 million? (Score 3, Insightful) 337

Maybe the government is just compiling a list of people who's votes should be filtered out if they sign a petition that the government is not to keen on?

That is one reason, among several good reasons, why we have a secret ballot.

Be assured that anyone wishing to change that has malicious intentions, no matter what excuse they provide.

Comment Re:IOW, we're making it harder get a response... (Score 1) 337

Y'know guys... if there's an overwhelming number of petitions to dramatically change things, maybe, just maybe, you should consider actually fixing shit that's constantly being petitioned about instead of saying "no, fuck you", and closing the petition.

Okay. How about if there's an overwhelming number of petitions for ridiculous garbage like building Death Stars or annexing Canada? What should they consider doing then?

I'm thinking they should raise the number of signatures that trigger a response, but that's just me.

They should ignore the petitions about "building Death Stars" and respond to the realistic ones, such as legalizing marijuana.

This is not difficult.

Comment Re:Great! (Score 1) 128

Very well articulated, better than myself.

Thank you...

- Frosty

Thank you, as well. I don't write many multi-paragraph semi-rants like that anymore, but some things need to be said. I didn't exactly have to stand in line behind a bunch of others who were going to say it.

Relatively early in life one gets used to seldom (or never) feeling represented by the opinions of the majority. It's actually rather liberating, once you understand that (sadly) so few are choosing to think for themselves and look beyond the presented/suggested/marketed points of view.

I think you would understand.

Comment Re:Great! (Score 3, Interesting) 128

Additional levels of automated stalking!!!

Don't you understand? People who sign up for Facebook *WANT* these things - their pathetic lives would be even less without their "friends". Without Facebook, many people have NOTHING!

Your "Troll" mod was not because you said anything inaccurate. It is because we live in an increasingly emotionally immature society where the pleasantness of a thing is considered more important than the truth of a thing. It is the result of being governed by emotion and not reason. Whoever modded you "Troll" is like that. Sadly, many people are unable to calmly articulate their own opinion, so they need to "get back at you" in some way for offending them. After all, you didn't constantly say things like "well just my opinion" (something already understood) and "hope it doesn't offend anyone" (that is their choice) to kiss their asses and placate their desire to climb up on their high horse and cry about how terrible you are. Their self-importance and false sense of entitlement demand that you show such undue deference, you know.

Anyway, when you have real friends whom you love and respect like family members, and a satisfying social life, Facebook has no appeal. All Facebook offers that cannot easily be had elsewhere is the exchange of trivia with and casual attention from strangers or superficial acquaintences. The trade-off of losing so much irretrievable privacy in exchange for something so devoid of real value makes no sense. To those who are not starved for attention, it is all minuses and no plusses. The bandwagon it has become is also unappealing to those who are not herd animals, who don't find "everyone else is doing it" to be a valid reason to do anything.

I can certainly see how those who otherwise would have no satisfying social life might find it appealing. This merely constitues Facebook taking advantage of a weakness/shortcoming and exploiting it in order to make money. The disrespect they frequently show to their userbase and the obvious disregard of basic privacy concerns makes it inherently exploitative in nature. It's something that a healthy, happy person who is not needy would refuse to tolerate. Zuckerberg's contempt for his own users has been repeatedly established by his very own statements. This is someone people want to trust with so much personal data? It's absurd and indicates that many people have no idea whom they're dealing with, or simply no real discerning standards for themselves.

If someone has to data-mine and connect lots of different dots and perform all kinds of automated searches in order to find you, it is because you didn't want to be found. That's why such vast systems and huge databases were necessary to do something that is otherwise so simple. If you want someone to be involved in your life in some way, none of that would be needed.

I do agree with your premise that for people who have little else, this kind of attention may actually be welcome. Of course that is pathological, used as a terrible substitute for real fulfillment and real quality time with people who actually love and understand you. This should be obvious, but when lots of people want to legitimize something, the first thing they must do is create confusion and complicate otherwise simple things. When enough people do that, it can make the obvious seem controversial when really it is merely inconvenient (the gun control "debate" is that way - wow criminals don't obey weapons restrictions, who'da thunk it?).

Finally, I wonder: how many people would have had to face and overcome their personal social weaknesses if they hadn't had Facebook as a readily available crutch?

Comment Re:Silence thy neighbour's phone (Score 1) 251

So this is an idea: When you set your phone to "stealth", it will start broadcasting, maybe once per minute, some kind of bluetooth or wifi message that urges neighboring phones to go into stealth mode automatically. If the other phones pick up enough of these requests and are so configured, they will comply. Phones going into stealth mode automatically don't retransmit the request. It only works when you have a large number of phones in a small area, which also happens to be when it needs to work. Possibility of abuse, some.

Anything to avoid being responsible adults, considerate of those around you, right?

Comment Re:How is this gasping news (Score 1) 443

it is far more about lawsuit liability, which leads to less financial loss, which leads to having more to survive with.

You are confusing cause with effect (cf. my username). A lawsuit is the effect of the kind of non-freak-accident I was talking about.

By acknowledging the valid concern corporations have about lawsuit liability, you are also acknowledging that there are people who would not correctly handle a deadly poison with the respect it deserves. The point is not that it could result in a lawsuit, though that is true. The point is that it would not be a freak accident.

Comment Re:How is this gasping news (Score 2) 443

This is plainly wrong - Warning labels are part of the natural selection. We survive better as a species by limiting the risk of falling victim to freak accidents by warning each other. This would be akin to claiming that birds warning each others against predators would mess up the natural selection process. They don't. They just introduce additional complexity.

I have a good example for you to consider: bug spray. You know, that stuff that's so toxic that you can spray it on a filthy cockroach and the roach will drop dead?

When you have to tell someone that bug spray is poisonous and that ingesting it will harm them, well, you are no longer talking about a freak accident.

Comment Re:Typical slashdot attorney bashing (Score 1) 234

Lol the law and judge opinions aren't written in LATIN.

While that was not the OP's point, it is ironic that you focused on it because it is demonstrably not true. Modern legal code is littered with latin phrases.

The AC to whom you are responding demonstrates why it is difficult sometimes for adults to have meaningful conversation. There are always small-minded people like him who not only do not appreciate it (which is their loss), but actively resent it and seek to interfere with it. They choose to be on the noise side of the signal-to-noise ratio.

I suspect that deep down, they have never learned to deeply appreciate much of anything because doing so generally doesn't fit into their ten-second attention spans. Rather than being "just their way of doing things", this is an inferior choice. They themselves know it, if only instinctively, and it comes out in the envious manner in which they try to disrupt others from enjoying it.

There are some sad, sad people on this planet, trying so hard to be self-important. Since they aren't finding real worth within themselves, they have to grasp for it in the outside world of other people. The only method available to them is denigrating someone else. It is too bad that they'd rather continue to act out such impulses, since they lack the introspection and the emotional maturity to recognize them as the character flaws that they are.

Comment Re:Fatal flaw with biological storage (Score 3, Funny) 234

I actually had a great, if somewhat unusual, method of backing up my photographs- I got a deer to memorise them. I know it sounds weird, but it turned out to be quite effective, at least with the males (does, on the other hand, were less reliable). I trained it to understand basic commands and in response, it scratched out a basic reproduction of the requested image, eventually improving to quite impressive quality after a period of time. In this way, I came to realise that I was using their brain as a sort of basic computer memory. This worked very well until I realised that my contract with the owner of the deer meant he had the right to reuse anything they had memorised. Of course, this was not acceptable, so I no longer store my photos in stag RAM.

This is why drugs are not for everyone.

Slashdot Top Deals

You do not have mail.

Working...