Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Hatchet jobs aside (Score 1) 410

(better late than never)

But they replaced the board with a bunch of people that are well known proponents of privacy and not exactly friends of the federal government...

*IF* the cons are the government, cleaning up the board of directors with people that did not already had said "no" to their proposals is better than sticking up with people that did. At least there's a hope for change - and, believe me, this stunt was cheap for the government, they can repeat this ad nauseaum.

But perhaps the feds are not guilty this time, who knows?

Comment Re:Hatchet jobs aside (Score 1) 410

What I don't understand about opinions like yours is, if it really is some kind of government setup, why did they pick Jacob Abelbaum? He is not even close to a crucial part of Tor. There are lots of more important developers that they could have targeted instead. Besides the scandal of it, losing his developer abilities barely effects Tor at all.

Because he was the weakest link.

Abelbaum was not the target, he was the means. Someone (or all) the board of directors was/were the target(s).

Comment Re:Where's the civil and or criminal cases? (Score 1) 410

A "confirmation" from an internal corporate investigation is worth about as much as my toilet.

On the other hand, for a company/organisation to come out in public with a statement like this is very risky indeed, unless they are able to back it up with substantial evidence.

No, it's not risky. It's not risky at all.

Comment Re:I preferred counter culture (Score 1) 249

> Lot of us jumped ship from Linux at the Gnome Desktop 3 fiasco.

Did you never learn how to install and select KDE, XFCE, LXDE, Mint, Cinnamon, or others ?

Yes. I do it now and then on XQuartz to probe the scene and see if there's hope of coming back. ;-)

Seriously, KDE is terrible - if I enjoyed Windows, I would use Windows, no need for a half-baked free clone (QT is nice, however, I give them that).

By Mint you mean MATE, right? Well... MATE was a short term solution, but since everything and the kitchen's sink are being ported to Gnome3, on the long term my desktop would be driven to irrelevance.

Cinnamon? Seriously? Why would I accept all the problems of the Gnome3 to get half the benefits from the Gnome 2?

On the long run, the fact is that my time is expensive nowadays, I'm not a Linux evangelist those bills were paid by my parents anymore.

Comment Re:Java 9? meh... (Score 2) 115

There is a reason that scripting languages aren't normally used for large applications. After the initial "wow that was super simple to write", you get to the phase where debugging takes forever, and maintenance is a pain in the ass. Maintenance is always the major share of software cost, and the amount of time it takes to write the initial code should be a secondary consideration (IMHO). Anyone who thinks a strongly typed language is just a pain in the ass probably hasn't done much long-term maintenance on a large system.

And this is precisely the reason there're so much effort on "dynamic languages".

The ideal programmer nowadays are cheap and disposable as the code he writes. There's no money on fixing production code, everybody wants to throw everythig away and rewrite from scratch every couple of years.

Long term maintenance demands competent and experienced professionals - that costs more. Throw away code, written by throw-away programmers are cheaper on the short-run, leaving more money to be pocketed by the low and middle management.

Comment Re:Windows 10 (Score 1) 249

Don't feel bad. I used SLS when Debian even didn't existed yet. Hell, I heard that Slackware born as a fork from SLS! (Kernel 0.99 or 0.98 I think, all was statically linked yet, IIRC)

I had to import it on CD-ROM, spent some serious money on it (more than a Windows 3.11 license fee).

Happily, however, I had an EGA card around so I could us X in full blown 16 colors. :-D

Comment Re: Omar Saddiqui Mateen? (Score 1) 1718

hey don't believe that they do not know? The do not believe what they believe. They do not believe that they do not know.

I fear that you are trying to apply different definitions to belief, in one case completely dismissing a belief because it is convenient for whatever you are trying to argue.

Nah. You are doing it for us. All I'm doing is taking some popcorn while wait for your next fallacy. :-)

The difference between knowledge and believing (creed) is common sense enough.

Except for the poor agnostics, who apparently cannot believe something that everyone else would declare as belief. Word smithing, nothing more.

I agree. I just can't understand why you are doing such fuss about. At least it's being fun.

And in the beginning, this was an attempt to claiim that atheism is a religion. It isn't, and when people try to turn it into "religion" they have to perform silly gyrations, like your claiming that agnostics don't believe what they believe.

No. *YOU* are claiming that I'm claiming - something totally different. :-) (this conversation is all about you, no?)

I'm stating that Agnostics don't know if there's a God - and that's all what I'm stating.

Which is all to say, I belive that there is no flying spaghetti moster is real, and that it is not deity. I suspect you don't ether. And that makes us atheists toward the FSM. But you apparently would call my atheism toward the FSM my religion? Weeeeoo - that makes both us us have thousands of religions.

I made no such affirmation.

I stated that Atheism is the belief that there's no God. You made the relation between belief (or perhaps "creed would be a better word?) and religion - not me. ;-)

My posts are all above, anyone can read it.

Comment Re: Omar Saddiqui Mateen? (Score 1) 1718

Wrong - Atheism is lack of belief in a God. That is a critical distinction.

Wrong. What you described is Agnosticism.

Wrong, an agnostic, according to Merriam Webster, is:

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

That is what the agnostic person believes. Their "view, as defined in the dictionary.

An atheist believes that a God does not exist. Also from Merriam Webster.

Which is the same thing as a lack of belief in a God.

Because to take your view, an atheist would have to believe in a God to not believe in.

Wrong again. The key word is "believe".

Agnostician don't know. Perhaps there's a god, perhaps there's not - anyway, it is pointless to discuss without evidences. There's no place for "believing" on agnosticism. Everybody will die someday, so everybody will see it (if it's true), or just ceasing to exist without knowing it (if it's not).

What's different from the view of the Atheists - these ones *do believe* that there's no God, even by not being able to prove it. It's exactly the same psychological posture from the Theists, the only difference is that these last ones do believe there's a God, even by not being able to prove it.

If something can not be proved, no one can know about it. Just believe on it. In this approach, Atheists and Theists are on the same side.

Slashdot Top Deals

Failure is more frequently from want of energy than want of capital.

Working...