Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Use a liberal definition of planet (Score 2) 143

I actually really like this idea:
Define a Star as a body that has achieved a nuclear fusion reaction.
Define a Planet as a body that has enough mass to be spherical that orbits a star.
Define a Planetoid as a body that has enough mass to be spherical that does not orbit a star.
Define a Moon as a body that has enough mass to be spherical that orbits a planet.
Define an Asteroid as a body that does not have enough mass to be spherical that orbits a star.
Define a Natural Satellite (here's to you, potato shaped Phobos) as a body that does not have enough mass to be spherical that orbits a planet. Maybe call it a Moonoid?


Define Pluto and Charon as a binary planet; since they appear to orbit each other (and binary stars are already defined).
If this means Sedna and a few other bodies become planets -- fine. But at least the definitions are easy.

Comment Re:John Deere has too many non farmers (Score 3, Insightful) 448

There is no Federal law regarding repair requirements for automobiles or tractors. The only relevant law is one passed in 1990 that required computer monitoring of emissions and, in turn, required that independent shops be able to access the data.

Both major parties have had control at various times, and neither of them was able to get such a law passed. You have been deceived into becoming a loyal low-information Democratic voter.

Comment Re: It is just a decent thing to do (Score 1) 40

Don't want fraudulent items, make them in your own country.

You're either a (lame) troll, or utterly clueless about how quickly knock-offs are created based on nothing more than things like product photos on the designer's web site. All a knock-off company has to do is place an order for an item (and return it, later - free access!) in order to inspect it closely enough to make a sellable ripoff version. No, not every knock off (or even most of them) is made by scam artists at the factory making the original, and brand owners are increasingly able to police that since that practice became more prevalent over the last few years.

Comment Re:I guess /. still approves this crap (Score 1) 268

If every bank involved agrees the invalid signature is valid, what happens to the money?

Stealing a coin here or there from a wallet that hasn't been touched in a while would be more "practical", and for all we know, is being done now.

Anyone can audit the blockchain, not just miners.

It'd be possible to find every bitcoin not traded in the past 3 years, assert it "lost" then the attacker fraudulently claim them with the attack given, and it's possible he could liquidate after the theft without anyone noticing until he's cashed out.

It's not just miners checking the transactions.

Comment Re:I guess /. still approves this crap (Score 1) 268

I do understand Bitcoin, and what you are describing is impossible. Bitcoins cannot be transferred from one account to another unless you have the private keys to the account that currently holds them. It's like a signed check - it can't be transferred to another account without a valid signature.

Comment Re:bloviated shit gibbon (Score 1, Informative) 516

while cutting Meals on Wheels

This is Fake News, which you know. So, the question is, why are you lying about it? It's something that's so easily debunked that you have to know anyone well-informed will know you're lying - so why do it? Which low-information audience are you taking to, and what do you think you're going to persuade them to do as they take onboard the false narrative you're trying to sell? Really - I'm curious. What's your purpose?

Comment Re:The guy who cleared clinton ? (Score 2, Informative) 516

Whatever was the problem with Clinton was surely of much lesser magnitude than Trump's people having secret dealing with foreign state entities.

What? So, Hillary Clinton and her husband personally rake in millions of dollars selling access to foreign dictators, and she conducts all of her correspondence on a server in her house in order to avoid FOIA scrutiny of her conduct in such matters, and then fails to turn over her records as she left office (as required by law), and the foot-drags for years and even destroys records while under subpoena ... all while continuing to soak up cash from overseas businesses and governments in anticipation of getting the presidential crown to which she felt entitled ... and you're saying that's not as bad as some imaginary conduct by someone associated with the Trump campaign having done something that Obama's own DNI and other officials have said they've seen absolutely no evidence to suspect happened.

Comment Re:Comey? (Score 3, Informative) 516

Why are you lying? Isn't it sort of silly when the fact your lying is so easily established through publicly available records and actual video recordings of people like Comey explaining things to us?

In the week before the election, he notified congress that a separate criminal investigation DID turn up new evidence related to the investigation of Clinton's mishandling of classified information. Why was it new evidence? Because Clinton and her aides (who had been granted immunity) said they had already turned over every scrap of data or device containing any record of the emails that Clinton handled from the internet-connected server she ran out of her house. This wan't true, of course. They had NOT turned over all of that data, or the devices on which it was stored. Because Clinton's closest aide had hundreds of thousands of such records on a laptop in her home - something that didn't come to light until the investigation into her husband's criminal activity exposed that fact. The FBI told congress about this, because congress was in the middle of investigations that relied on the FBI providing them with all such information, and the FBI - which had taken Clinton at her word that all such material had been turned over - suddenly found themselves with hundreds of thousand of new records to sort through, some of which might indeed cover some of the material that Clinto had destroyed while under subpoena. You don't think that matters? Or more to the point, you so wish it weren't the case that you're willing to try to lie it away from having happened?

And never told anyone they were investigating Trump.

Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it's because they WEREN'T "investigating Trump" at the time, and still aren't. They're investigating the manner and degree to which the Russians tried to influence public opinion during the election, and owing to political pressure, are including in that investigation whether or not individuals "associated with the campaign" had anything to do with such activity. They've also said, more than once, that they've seen no evidence at all that indicated any such thing. So what is it exactly that you're thinking they were supposed to disclose? They have nothing to show because they haven't seen anything - unlike in the Clinton case, where they had abundant evidence of her repeatedly lying, destroying evidence, and more. They pointed out that they weren't going to be able to get the Obama administration to prosecute the case, though they did say that if had been anyone else (besides Clinton) things would have been handled differently. I know, you're really trying to wish all of that away.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It says he made us all to be just like him. So if we're dumb, then god is dumb, and maybe even a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa

Working...