Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Here's the problem. (Score 3, Insightful) 171

> it's actually the telephone company which owns the iPhone

I hate to do this, mostly 'cause I like you, but that's simply not true - by precedent. To give two good examples:

1. Your home. If you're paid and current with your mortgage and the bank has not foreclosed and taken possession then the lending agency can not grant rights.
2. Your car, just like the above. The dealership or credit agency can not give the police permission to search your vehicle. Well, they can. It won't hold up in court.

So long as you're current then you have most every right you'd have with complete ownership. You own your house even while the bank owns it. You have the deed, they have a lien on the deed. The same thing for your car if it is not yet fully paid off. I'm not positive but I strongly suspect that if you're incarcerated and unable to make your payment then they still can't give permission to search.

Comment Re:No shit. (Score 1) 455

>> not everyone starts with the same level of driving ability

Funny you should mention that. Up above, I mentioned that I used to drive while very intoxicated. I never had an accident, got violated, and got my first (and only) moving violation in 1975. Yet, I drove professionally for a while (it was my MOS) and am an automotive aficionado who has taken many, many lessons and driven on-track and rallied - all strictly amateur. I've even done those things while moderately (for a drunk) intoxicated.

There is a component that is skill and I don't think people put much stock in it. I know, for example, that I drove better while moderately impaired than many non-impaired drivers. (Only an idiots says they drive better drunk. You do not. Though you might drive better after one or two if you're nervous about driving. I'd not call that drunk.)

So, two things... I do believe that training and ability come into play. I do not believe I am skilled enough to drive drunk safely. It was stupid and negligent when I did so.

In a perfect world, driving drunk would probably be legal but infractions while driving drunk would be penalized more heavily. It is not a perfect world and .08 was not far from my baseline. I do, really, think that having had a great deal of experience and formal training helped.

Comment Re:You need to set the cutoff somewhere (Score 2) 455

Do NOT do this.

When you drive drunk, and are so drunk that you truly have a hard time seeing, then just close one eye. It actually works. I had a drunken buddy share that kernel of wisdom with me. I have no idea how I never got an OUI or caused an accident - no infractions since a speeding ticket in something like 1975 and zero at-fault accidents ever - and I drive a whole lot more than most.

So, yeah... Do NOT do that. I learned my lesson without any actual repercussions but I drove drunk more often than I drove sober - for a very long time. I'm actually not sure if I'll ever be able to speculate that I've driven more sober than I've driven while intoxicated. I no longer drink. I have had alcoholic beverages since but never more than two and, in three years, I think I've had 7 total drinks and most of those were not finished.

Still, my retarded ass drove everywhere intoxicated. I mean everywhere. I drove across the country, multiple times, while drunk. Sometimes, too drunk to walk. I've always gotten away with it. I'm shocked that I never killed anyone or had an accident. I have had my car hit, twice, while stopped at a stop light and while parked, but was not at fault for either. I do a bit of amateur rally racing and I've crashed there. I was not, on the other hand, drunk for that - at least not very. (I've competed while marginally drunk.)

I had a friend who had a BAC testing, portable thing, and it is not accurate but I've pegged it out at .38. I know that I've been much more drunk than that. At the time, I was probably pretty normal seeming until I hit .2 - maybe more. I used to get to what I'd estimate would be .12 and then just maintain it throughout the day. I do miss drinking but I was going to end up harming myself or others.

Comment Re:How about... (Score 1) 455

Yes, yes they are. The concept of better 9 criminals be set free than 1 innocent person not going to jail is seen as quaint.

Yes, they'll deprive all for the sake of the few. (See firearms as an example.)

There's a certain level of risk assumed with operating a motor vehicle on a public road. I'm not suggesting that we allow unfettered access and lawlessness but I am suggesting that we honestly look at the probabilities and then make a realistic choice regarding where the lines should be drawn.

However, the idea of accepting risk is crazy talk these days. I think there are people who would ban most anything just so they could maybe stop someone from doing harm with it. I'm not really sure where this leads but I suspect we'll all be incarcerated to protect us from ourselves in a few thousand years. No, you may not go outside - there's danger!

Really, a lot of people are just cowards at heart and others really get off in restricting rights that they, themselves, do not make use of. For an example, I'm not really a religious person but I have no problem with that right being removed. How many times have you seen others suggesting some sort of "final solution" for the religious?

Comment Re:Microsoft is dieing (Score 1) 130

So I should stick with it?

Sorry for the late reply - I ran out of posts. Even with the highest karma levels, you're limited to 50/day.

Anyhow, I'll probably stick with it until it is EOL. I'm likely to get the Ubuntu phone next. I do like WP 8, a bunch. I've never come across something I wanted to do with my phone that I could not do with my phone - easily and quickly. So, I'm not missing any features.

Then again... I text, email, make calls, surf the web, and check weather - maybe check video at my home in Maine, etc... Not much, really.

Comment Re:Here You Go... (Score 1) 249

LOL Yup. Though, unlike you, I've had great Karma from the start, pretty much. I had an older account but it was tied to the email of the company I used to own and I don't know the username. I drank a lot back then. I thought it was Incognito but that isn't my account. I want to say that my first account was in 2002-2003 range. It was 7x,xxx or so I recollect. No biggie, I'm reasonably sure I said stupid shit.

On the other hand, I've been mod bombed to hell and it's never actually impacted my karma's rating. I've been "excellent" since just about day one. I have no idea why. It's not like I hold my tongue or am the least bit bashful about saying things that might irk someone - so long as they're factual. I hold some rather odd views, very different from most, and I voice them. Even concerning politics.

So yeah, I've been mod bombed to hell but never had an issue. I've opened the message notifications and seen the scroll bar be very, very tiny. (I want to say that my record is about 80 mod points - good and bad and in total) being spent in one day by angry people. At one point, someone was running around and moderating anything I said down.

I have no idea how the karma system really works, I guess. I thought I did but no... I must have near infinite points. LOL

Anyhow, no... I'd not moderate you down. I'd not moderate anyone down. I don't even moderate anyone up. I don't moderate. If you stop spending all of your points then the system seems to forget about you. My scores are better than ever and I still don't get mod points any more. I used to but not any more. I stopped spending them years and years ago. Who am I to judge?

Comment Re:I actually liked this feature (Score 1) 190

C'mon over. You're gonna need to sit in the driveway or come inside. My home is 24 miles from the village and at the end of a 1/2 mile drive. Your cantenna isn't going to cut it. So, when they come looking I'll be able to see the logs and say, "Ah ha! I know who it was. In fact, here's my firewall logs. No, you can have those without a warrant, fuck that guy."

Comment Re:Not very realistic (Score 1) 147

I just did a quick Google and you might want to as well. You offered an "Actually..." So, I went and took a look with the query of "sex at olympic games."

If the four links, fairly randomly clicked, are to be considered truth then there's significantly more there than there are at other functions.

I guess it's down to this... Err... Where'd you come up with that response? I open every reply with a mental note to say, "Thanks, I learned something." Or, "You have a good point." (I find it helps. I literally consciously think about it each time.) 'Cause I'm speaking only about the athletes. I'm not sure how the spectators are important or salient. I may not have been clear enough.

So, I'm trying but I must be missing something. I opened the reply thinking that I'd be acknowledging my error and learning something new. If the reports are accurate then there's a whole bunch of fucking going on. I'm completely baffled that you then "actually" me and say that physical fitness hasn't anything to do with it when we're discussing a group for whom physical fitness is a very strong attractor/trait. At that point, you decided to go into the crowd and see what the spectators are doing.

What am I missing? I must be missing something.

Comment Re: "People of Color" = weak? (Score 1) 134

I'd not normally dignify you with a response but, how cute. You did exactly what I expected you to do. I know, quite well, what Affirmative Action entails. Thanks.

The part that makes me curious if you're trolling or just stupid would be where you went with needs based. Frankly, if they don't need it then there's no reason to help them. Such is painfully obvious. So, obviously, needy people get a preference because they're needy and not because of the color of their skin.

In addition, I'm not sure that *you* know what Affirmative Action is. It's not to be mistaken with an EOE.

And no... We don't need to make sure they're not discriminating. Sorry but no. We can deal with reports rather than try to push preferential treatment - equal employment opportunity is already a law.

But yeah, tell the guy who's been subjected to overt racism for nearly 60 years how well he really understands the degree of systemic racism. You surely need to tell me how to feel, after all - I can't learn without extra help. I do, on the other hand, thank you for demonstrating my point. This is going to sound strange but maybe you can just worry about you and let me fight my own battle. I'll also add that I've had parts of this discussion with many real-life black people (not just the token friend that you're sure to have on hand) and, for the most part, we're fairly close to unanimous in our dislike for such.

Still, it's priceless how quickly someone proved my point. Thank you Mr. AC - you've done me a disservice from having to go back through logs and find a citation.

Comment Re:If you're an employer, you can help (Score 2) 134

This is going to sound really, really crazy - but hear me out.

The employers can help (I know, I used to be one and I still do) by actually paying your employees to live comfortably and having the chance to build up security equity with myriad methods.

I know that paying your employees well is a crazy idea but I had pretty good results with it. Unadjusted, in 1998 or so, we paid anywhere from 90 to 120k to start programmers who could learn modeling and domain-specific topics and we paid engineers just about the same. If a 'traffic engineer' of any skill were available then we'd have paid more.

WTF would I care about it? 'Snot like it comes out of my pocket. Yes, yes I owned the business. However, I drew a check like everyone else - often lower than some employees. The business had its money, I had mine. Keeping the funds separated and being disciplined about it is one of the reasons that we did as well as we did. That and paying them enough to where they did not have to struggle.

As an aside: Today, a Senior Traffic Engineer (there's such a thing these days) might pull down between 80 and 110k. Err... It was pretty niche for a while. Then folks realized it was lucrative, courses were changed, and there's a slew of them and most of them are making much less than they should be.

At any rate, I'm not taking it out on you. I also had the benefit of not being a publicly traded corporation (it was/is incorporated but the now-parent company is publicly traded) so it's all good to me. It's not my money that I spent on them. It was the money the company got paid to do a job.

I'd also add that I dislike the word "employee" just a little. It has certain connotations that I do not prefer. I worked *with* mine and that's pretty different than saying that they worked *for* me. It might not seem it but, to me, it's a huge difference. :/

So, good luck. I like what you've done and that's a great idea. There were times when employees got to borrow money but it was never for any real crisis - it was just expediency. I crunched some numbers about 6 months ago and, IIRC, said Sr. Traffic Eng. should be pulling down 180 to 210 in today's dollars even if they got zero raises during that time frame. Some people don't like to hear this but the reality is that I wasn't paying the money - taxes (generally) were. Most of our business was, at that time, vehicular traffic modeling. So, why not pay what's there (even bonuses) to employees? The goal was to keep the business healthy and productive. The way to do that is to keep them challenged, happy, and paid well for quality work.

Yes, I know that's just crazy talk.

Comment Re:All your attention are belong to us (the google (Score 1) 134

I'm a bit curious about why you think Google should be checking into a business model - and, really, what does that phrase actually mean?

The second makes me curious... What the hell is "dropboxes?" (I'm kind of fluent in criminal terminology (2 proficiency slots in Thieve's Cant.) What's that?
        Also, why would they trust users or are you saying that you should flag them and they should review 'em?
        I'm not actually sure why you'd expect Google (or really want, I guess) to do such things. Me? I just want them to give me search results.

I have no idea what you mean by pwning YouTube. I know what pwning is. Who's distributing malware by Google or hacking users through YouTube directly?
          Are you talking about the links that people put in the description that take you off-site? I only see those when I'm hunting for copyrighted material.

The last one (I think) is "stealing your personal information." Err... They stole your information? How? They DO say they're slurping up your information and, in fact, make it part of their agreement to let you use their stuff. I'm not really sure where you're going with that one. I see them doing something I don't like (slurping up data) but they do make it pretty clear that that's what they're doing so I'm not sure that the word stealing applies. There might be something that I'm unaware of.

To the best of my knowledge, Google has no information about me that I didn't give to them. Well, there was the wireless router thing. I guess that'd count but I suspect that's not what you mean because that's long-since gone.

Then, I might be crazy, but didn't this:

My own motto these years is "Additional detailed suggestions available upon polite request, but I'm not holding my breath."

appear in another thread from earlier today? Again, I'm not sure what you're going for.

I should mention that I've been quite pissed with Google for a long time. So, I'm not asking these questions just to be obtuse. I'm actually the guy that gave up on Android and got a Windows Phone. So, I'm really not a fanboy or anything. I do use YouTube. I do have a GMail account that doesn't get used. I do, actually use their search.

A note on that last part. I use their search AND I have profile set up so that it returns personalized responses. They're pretty good and come at a price - privacy. So, I do two things... I only let Google get my information when I give it to them on that particular page. I block all Google stuff (including images and fonts) by default by means of uMatrix. So, I'm not actually being tracked with their other stuff like analytics or tag. In fact, I need to go out of my way in order to even see their CAPTCHA - it simply does not load. (That has led to some interesting periods of confusion and some frustration but I consider it worth it.)

So, yeah, I'm mostly just curious about the personal information theft. See, I know how the 'net works and I don't actually consider tracking (if that's what you're even going for) to be theft. In fact, I consider people having given consent to such when they visit some third party site that has chosen to use their analytics or whatnot. I really can't think of any data that Google might have that I didn't give away by direct actions on my part. Yes, they index comments I make. They index a site or two. I don't actually consider that theft - I consider that being them doing their job.

Oh, forgot this... It's tempting to mention that "information wants to be free." That's not really my point. My point is that you're putting stuff out there knowing that it's going to be indexed (or, something?) and that you expect them to do some vague things with words that you have a cryptic definition for. I can not actually parse what is wholesale pwning of YouTube and I'm kind of fluent in computer (even blackhat) terminology.

It's almost as if you're asking Google to exert more control and that seems rather antithetical to your signature.

Then again, asking Google to trust its users is an odd position to hold. You might be someone they can trust but then again, you might be one of those people who think "mark as spam" is a valid choice when you did, in fact, sign up to receive those emails. The sad thing is that all that does is hurt the system for everyone. This is not an accusation towards you but I'll use the "Royal You." Okay? You signed up for the email, you didn't remove the checkmark when you went through the process and being too lazy to find the unsubscribe option harms those who legitimately want the emails because it effects (or can effect) more than just your inbox.

Again, you may not do that but they've had issues with this in the past and still have issues with it today. And no, I'm certainly not defending those who really send UCE/spam. Those guys can fuck right off.

Slashdot Top Deals

How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One to hold the giraffe and one to fill the bathtub with brightly colored power tools.

Working...