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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor (Score 1) 878

I'm fairly sure that Obama wouldn't have the balls to push the Red Button regardless of Putin wanting to, apparently, bring back the Soviet Union, and perhaps wanting to bomb the U.S. back into the stone age, however.. ..yes, the U.S. could still, so far as I know, nuke Russia just as much as Russia could nuke the U.S.. However it would still be the End Of Life On Earth As We Know It, and anyone who doesn't get that is deeply and dangerously in denial. Furthermore don't forget that China (and maybe India, too) would be sitting there munching on popcorn the entire time, waiting for the show to be over so they could pick up the pieces, and I don't think anyone has forgotten that.

Personally, I believe that if the US tried to destroy Russia with their nukes, they would just blow themselves up. Their weapons are poorly maintained and they haven't had the human talent to address the issue for a long time.

Comment Re:what? youre a cluless cunt (Score 3, Interesting) 381

google contributes nothing good to society and freeloads off of all content creators period

I like my Nexus 5. I'm new around here, and I find it very helpful finding my way around the city. I hitchhiked all the way across the continent a few months ago, and Google Maps helped me find my way.

What did YOU contribute?

Comment Re:Sour grapes (Score 0) 381

Anti-copyright does work for the consumer. It works against content creators that want a stranglehold on their so-called IP. Sounds like hes scared his gravy train might derail and have to start working again and create new content for people..

The world doesn't continue operating on the concept of free stuff, you idiot.

If you ever created anything you would want to continue receiving benefits from jt too.

Of course you have never created anything, you just sit in your mom's basement and jerk off.

I'm a creator of intellectual works. Some of my intellectual works help bring medicine to billions of people. I've never wanted to continue to receive payment for work I've done in the past.

If I want the creation to exist, I create it without being paid because I want it to exist, without compromise, exactly the way I envisioned it.

For example, I don't like seeing people in my community go hungry, so I helped build an urban farm where the volunteers feed themselves first and the excess goes to the food bank.

If I'm indifferent to the existence of the creation, I ask to be paid as I work, and when the problem is solved and the work is done, I move on, looking for other people who need my help.

But, you know... I'm just doing practical work that changes peoples lives in practical ways. It's nothing as grand as a fictional work aggrandizing a biker gang or anything like that.

It's really very straightforward. Sell what is scarce and you will get paid. Try to sell something that is naturally abundant and not only will you not get paid like you expect, but you will earn the justifiable scorn of your peers. And it will be your own stupid fault.

As far as Kurt Sutter is concerned... I'm not interested in contributing to support a police force that goes around shaking people down for money on his behalf. Based on the numbers, it doesn't appear that very many other people are interested either, and the law is slowly changing to reflect our views. So, it appears that he is pretty much fucked.

Comment Re: Laughable (Score 2) 260

That's easy.

Facebook tricked people into thinking of it as a highly private platform, somewhere safe to use your real name and share pictures with your mom.

People don't remember that, for the most part, but that really was the reason for their success... the only novel thing they did.

Comment Re: The difference is scale. (Score 1) 401

Sailing is practically free transportation. The adjustment of the sails can be automated so a single human operator can run the whole ship.

Failing to exploit this is simply stupid.

States someone who obviously has never set foot on a sailboat.

Sailing is akin to standing in a cold shower and ripping up hundred dollar bills.

I was born and raised next to the ocean. I grew up jigging for cod with my grandfather. My father taught sailing to the sea cadets. I've been on sailboats, worked on freighter ships. Numerous members of my family have owned boats of their own. I personally never had enough interest to actually buy one of my own, but I expect that will change over the coming decades.

But thanks for implying I don't know anything about what I'm talking about, asshole.

Comment Re:Laughable (Score 4, Interesting) 260

The basic premise, that it is an anomaly for us to come together into a common social space, is so ridiculous that I have to wonder what her agenda is for making such a blatantly false claim.

People came together from their community to the marketplace to socialize. People came together at church every single Sunday.

Beyond the reaches of the individual community, people of almost every faith used to come together for pilgrimage, allowing them to socialize with other members of their faith from far away places and become more worldly and less ignorant. This was considered a moral duty.

The point isn't to go where people who are your friends are, or to go to places where people who are into the same hobbies. The point is to grow as a human being by leaving your comfort zone.

The real anomaly is in the walls that keep us from knowing each other. It keeps us weak, powerless and under control.

Comment Re: The difference is scale. (Score 1) 401

Sailing is practically free transportation. The adjustment of the sails can be automated so a single human operator can run the whole ship.

And poor people, after the global economic collapse, are going to buy that automated sailing ship how again?

Most people don't see the flaw in thinking that they're going to weather the coming social breakdown because they have a high limit on their Visa card.

If nothing else, I'll eventually get around to designing it myself and I'll teach them how.

Not right now though, I'm otherwise occupied.

Comment Re:Thanks Jenny (Score 0) 747

I see her as a mass murderer. People have died as a direct result of her bullshit. She ought to be put through the justice system in the same way that someone impersonating a doctor would be tried for a death resulting from his or her false medical advice. Except in her case, it's not just one death, it's a whole lot of deaths. Sure, it's not solely her fault, but it doesn't have to be (nor should it need to be) in our justice system.

You chose to live in the city, packed tight like rats on a sinking ship. If you lived in the country, you wouldn't be at risk. If your lifestyle relies on forcing other people to accept being injected with a witches brew of disease and heavy metals, and you're ok with that, perhaps we would be better off if you DID die of disease.

Comment Re:Well done (Score 1) 9

That's the point. You don't need for people not to be able to see to feel private.

Feeling private does not mean having privacy.

You absolutely do need for people not to see in order to have privacy. That reality-TV celebrity and that Asian family do not have privacy, only the illusion thereof. That illusion has some psychological value, but not nearly as much as the real thing. As for the guy in the bathroom and the couple in the room with the tie on the door, you don't know what they're actually doing at all, and it is for that reason that they have privacy.

People will always have secrets, they will always find ways to keep them, and they will always have perfectly legitimate reasons for doing so. Your own use of a pseudonym is implicit but irrevocable agreement with that latter fact.

That illusion is what you have now, and have had for a very long time. Try to understand that. You don't have secrets. You really don't. Your secrets are known by a select group of people that you don't know, and they are for sale. That is the status quo you are defending. That is the status quo I am opposed to. I am not speaking in favour of putting cameras in your bedroom. I am speaking in favour of expanding the "select group that is in the know" to include you.

Comment Re:Well done (Score 1) 9

That's the point. You don't need for people not to be able to see to feel private. You just need to not be forced to acknowledge them. As illustrated by the people going to the bathroom, the people hanging the tie on the door, the reality television stars finding privacy while on camera and the Asian who finds privacy behind a translucent sheet of paper. When push comes to shove, it doesn't matter that they can see, as long as you don't have to acknowledge them.

I consider the current situation where we're working as a culture to create new taboo's to cope with "cyber-bullying" as the beginning of the process.

Comment Re:Well done (Score 1) 9

Just to make it clear, I'm in favor of omnipresent surveillance. I'm opposed to the surveillance being restricted to the few. I believe the capacity for each of us to see what has happened and is happening anywhere on the Earth is magnificent, and that is what I fear we will lose. I hope we can develop the decorum that we will need to allow the human race to blossom into creatures who spend their entire lives taking it for granted that they can see anything and everything, and still have privacy despite there being no secrets, anywhere.

Comment Re:I have a problem with that. (Score 1) 479

And just do this for 20 different passwords, because you should never reuse one.

Good luck memorizing.

Firstly: Which do you think is harder to memorize... a strong password, or a sentence?

Secondly: You can safely write it down. So, you don't need to memorize.

Finally: You shouldn't reuse your banking password, or the password for your laptop or office computer, obviously. When you're talking about things like web forums, it's not really that important.

Slashdot Top Deals

To be is to program.