Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 1) 248

End the First Amendment? WTF are you smoking?

The "two party system" that the GP wants to destroy (that's his word) only exists because the First Amendment protects our rights to assemble - you know, into groups like political parties - and then do things like collectively express their political opinions, put forth candidates, etc. How do you intend to destroy those groups without destroying the fundamental thing that protects their right to exist, keeping assembly and speech destroyers from doing just that?

Comment Re:All the stories I'm seen look horrifying (Score 1) 435

You can upgrade to Win 10, and immediately roll it back to 7. It might uninstall some programs it deems incompatible, but otherwise should put you back where you started. Microsoft's servers register the fact that you've taken advantage of the free upgrade to Win 10 (dunno if it's tied to the hardware or to the Win 7 key), so you can go back to Win 10 for free again any time in the future. This is actually the strategy I've been advising - that way you can decide whether or not to upgrade to Win 10 after seeing what features/horrors the Aug 2 update brings.

Key transfer limitations are the same as with Win 7. Retail versions can be moved to new hardware. OEM versions are tied to the original computer.

You supposedly have 30 days to roll back to the previous version of Windows that you had, but I'd advise rolling back long before then. One of my VMs was upgraded July 2. I just tried rolling it back yesterday (July 28) and it said it was too late for me to roll back. This despite the Windows.old folder still being on the drive with all the Win 7 files still in there. On well, that's what snapshots are for.

Comment Re:The safe 1 minute summary (Score 5, Interesting) 123

United Airlines flight 232 crashed into an Iowa cornfield while attempting to land. A turbine in the #2 engine flew apart mid-flight due to a manufacturing defect, severing all the hydraulic lines. The crew controlled the plane with differential thrust from the two remaining engines, and frankly it was a miracle they even made it to the runway. Roughly a third of the people aboard were killed.

One of those killed was a lap child - a child flying without a paid seat, and thus held on a parent's lap during the flight. This presented a problem during the emergency landing. Lead flight attenand Jan Lohr followed FAA procedure and instructed the parents to put the child underneath the seat in front like a carry-on bag. After the accident, the mother (who survived) came up to Jan and, in tears, told her "I did what you told me to do, and I can't find my child."

Jan was beset with guilt, and began a quarter-century crusade to outlaw the practice of lap children. That any child flying should be required to have their own seat with a crash safety seat like we use in cars. She even testified about her experience before Congress. It all came for naught when in 2012 the FAA issued its final decision that lap children would still be allowed. A victory for the selfish, self-centered stockholders and management behind the evil airlines, right?

Not so fast. See, here's the thing. Flying is really, really safe. Due to the irrational nature of people's emotional mind, we fixate on large accidents while multiple small ones slip by unnoticed. So every time an airliner crashes, it makes national if not worldwide headlines. But if there's a car accident nearby, even your local news station is unlikely to cover it. Consequently we've spent decades concentrating on making flying disproportionately super-safe. The FAA crunched the numbers, and determined that if a family with a child decided to travel for vacation, the odds of the child dying in a plane accident - as a lap child - were lower than the odds of the child dying in a car accident while strapped into a car seat. So to encourage people to fly instead of drive with their child on vacation, they allow the family to fly without having to pay for an extra seat for the child.

The lap child policy saves lives, despite its horrific outcome when the statistics don't work your way and there's a lap child aboard a plane which does crash. (As for forcing airlines to give children a free seat, that doesn't work either because they don't know until the time of the flight exactly how many people will be aboard. The way the industry operates is to slightly overbook because on average a certain percentage of people will miss their flights. When that gambit fails and more people show up for the flight than there are seats on the plane, someone has to be bumped off the flight. Forcing them to hold an unknown number of seats in reserve for "surprise" undeclared children would shift the number of passengers for a "booked" flight down, forcing them to raise the per-seat price, which again would encourage parents of young children to drive instead of fly.)

Morality is hard.

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 1) 248

the first-past-the-post Presidency

Another thing that is NOT established by the constitution. We are a republic, with great deference given to the individual states. The constitution leaves it up to each state to decide how they will choose their electors in the presidential election. If you don't like how your state does it, work on your state legislators. If you don't like how another state does it, move to that state and work on the legislature there.

Comment Re:Timing (Score 1) 174

Doesn't matter. Hillary has the majority of the people, and come November, she will be winning not just the Oval Office, but both sides of Congress. Once the Bernie supporters realized they have to side with her (only fair play, as the Hillary supporters went with Obama), there is no way she cannot win the White House, as the RNC was not even covered by mainstream media for the most part, while the DNC is covered 24/7.

Hey, look! A Shillary in its natural habitat ... anonymous and cowardly.

Comment Re:Scathing (Score 2, Insightful) 174

That is some fantastic fantasy trolling there, with some great riffing on the sort of irrational stuff that comes right out of those people we see sobbing tears of cultish joy in the audience at the DNC. Well done! A fantastic simulation of everything that's wrong on the low-information, non-critical-thinking left. Bravo!

Comment Re:If I was President... (Or King!) (Score 1) 248

The idea that we put people into prison for being addicted to drugs is messed up...

Nobody is put into prison for being an addict. Nor is anybody put in prison for being an asshole. But we sure do put some of each into prison for the things they do. If you steal somebody else's stuff, it really doesn't matter if you did it because you're a drug addict or just a lazy asshole. If you are caught peddling heroin to kids, it doesn't matter if you did it because you're an addict or just an asshole.

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score -1, Troll) 248

So? I consider destruction of the two party system more important than voting for someone I dislike a little less.

And what was your plan, exactly? Are you calling for an end to the First Amendment? People shouldn't be allowed to assemble and express political preferences unless it's done the way you prefer? How would you enforce that, exactly? We don't have a "two party system," we have completely unlikable third parties who can't manage to understand why most people would never vote for them. "That they won't win" is certainly one issue, as people don't like to throw their votes away. But "these people are generally loons" is the more typical rationale. Parties that are absolutely obsessed about weed, or communism, or destroying intellectual property, or disarming the military, etc., don't fail because we have a "two party system," they fail because very few rational people would ever want to give such parties control of the government.

When the third parties stop being so fetishistic about their tiny number of pet issues, and start acting like they understand how many people they have to actually appeal to before they're given legislative and/or executive power, then you'll see a viable third party. But since the people who form and represent those parties DON'T WANT to appeal to most people, by definition, they're never going to get mainstream support. This really isn't very mysterious. You don't need to destroy something, you need to actually create something. How is that not obvious to you?

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 1) 248

that's what Bernie Sanders did and he had a huge impact on the Democratic platform, including turning Clinton against the TPP

And what it is about that completely non-binding, strictly aspirational bit of fluff (The Platform) is it that you suppose will somehow alter a candidate's actual value system and the world view, principles, ethics, and policies that they hold dear? Why would you want to vote for someone whose value system is so fragile and so malleable that a party's choice to placate the noisy losing minority in their ranks would actually change the winning candidate's principles? Or are you saying that the Democrat winner doesn't really have any sort of solid value system, and is thus so easily manipulated? Yeah, THAT'S a ringing endorsement.

There are systems that support healthy and effective 3rd parties, the US is not one of them.

The US system is completely silent on the matter. The constitution has nothing whatsoever to say about how many political parties there are or should be. The only thing the constitution has to say on the matter is that your right to form a group and express your opinion shall not be infringed. The Democrat party is quite a bit newer than the Republican party, for example. For quite some time during the history of the country, neither party existed. And for quite some time, several other parties have existed and continue to. They're just doing everything they can to be annoying or offensive to a large majority of the voters, and thus never attract enough people to make them form up into a larger gathering, like the two bigger parties have. That's not because we have a "two party system," it's because we have completely unattractive third (and fourth, etc) parties.

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 1) 248

They routinely pass law that violates the constitution

And in which suits have you participated, bringing those laws before a judge (or better, the Supreme Court as your way through things) in order to demonstrate this unconstitutionality?

There are plenty of people who go beyond armchair whining about it, on cases both local and federal. Recently: Heller, in DC, over unconstitutional infringement on the second amendment. Citizens United, on unconstitutional infringements on the first amendment. Judges listen, and throw out stuff that's plainly unconstitutional. In those two cases, you've got one party that's glad to see the results, and another party that wants to see more infringement. Now you know who to vote for.

Comment Re:Best selling product of all time? (Score 1) 356

This is something I've noticed about iPhone owners. Not all of them mind you, just a disproportionately larger share of them. They like the product not because it works well for them, but because it's popular. That is, their sense of the product's value is externalized. They feel better about their purchase because they know they're buying something lots of other people bought. That's why you get those silly iPhone covers with a cutout letting other people see the Apple logo - because it's important to them that other people know they have an iPhone.

When one of these people is a reporter, they'll write articles exaggerating how "popular" the iPhone is, because it makes themselves (and other iPhone users) feel better about their purchase. The best evidence of this is when iPhone users are proud that the iPhone has the biggest profit margin of any cell phone. As a customer, a big profit margin is against your best interests. If you had to choose between buying two cars and one had a 20% profit margin and the other a 5% profit margin, all other things being equal, you as the purchaser would take the one with the 5% profit margin. But because their sense of self-worth is based more on popularity, and profit correlates to popularity, they basically like that they are over-paying for a product, simply because lots of other people are also over-paying for the same product.

Comment Re:Stock media (Score 1) 211

They're not free. When you buy a CD (or DVD) of stock photos, the fee you paid for the CD or DVD includs licensing rights for you to use those photos commercially.

That's the way it used to work. The web changed all that by cutting out the middleman so to speak. You didn't need to buy an entire DVD full of images 99.9% of which you'd never use. You could go to the website of a stock photos company and license only the photos you wanted to use. Getty is one of those companies.

I'm more curious how Getty ended up thinking they owned the copyright on those images. If they misappropriated her photos, it's possible they misappropriated photos belonging to less-famous people by simply lifting them off web sites. I would propose Getty be forced to produce documentation (contracts for photos shot as work for hire, licensing rights for photos licensed, etc) for every single one of the photos they offer for sale. It's not unreasonable - that's what they ask you to do if they claim you're using one of their photos in violation of copyright. Now that their copyright "chain of custody" has been found to be flawed, they need to do the same for every photo they're using.

Comment $1 billion is actually pretty reasonable (Score 5, Informative) 211

The music industry set the bar at $22,500 per violation ($675,000 for 30 works) for an individual violating copyright without a profit motive. $1 billion for 18,000 works is only $55,555 per violation, which is relative to the Tenenbaum case is not unreasonable when you consider this is commercial copyright violation. Her lawyers are actually being nice by "only" asking for $1 billion. Copyright law allows her to sue for up to $150,000 per violation, which would be a cool $2.7 billion.

In other words, if she gets less than $22,500 * 18,000 = $405 million out of this, there's been a gross miscarriage of justice either in her case or the Tenenbaum cause. Unlike filesharing, what Getty Images did is precisely the sort of thing copyright law was made to prohibit - profiting off the work of others.

Comment Re:Joke ? (Score 1) 1004


I like the way you specifically address the reports of her lying and corruption, and show how they're not true. A lot of media outlets need to go over your detailed material so they can retract all of those reports. The FBI, also, will appreciate your straightening out the 100+ investigators who clearly don't have your chops when it comes to all of the things they found her to be lying about. Really, give them a call! I'm sure they'd love to hear how they got it all wrong. They didn't find 3,000 more work-related emails that she deleted, no way. They didn't find dozens of threads/exchanges involving classified information - no sir! They were wrong, lawyers DID go over every single email, they were just dumb and couldn't understand them, right? And the FBI can't count. When Hillary says "one device," and the FBI says "multiple," that's just a misunderstand about the difference between "one" and "more than one." Have you considered a career in journalism?

Oh, right. I was thinking of another post. Yours is just smug, lazy ad hominem with no substance. Go team Hillary! If it works, don't change tactics, right? Right!

Comment Re:Joke ? (Score 1) 1004

Taking your guns away once again, I assume?

I certainly don't like her or her party's posture on dismantling the second amendment, no, or her disregard for several of the others. But I was referring specifically for her contempt for the first amendment. That should bother you, too. It's especially funny, though, given how she collects her family's millions in cash.

couple thousand Syrian women and children fleeing

There's lots to talk about that's actually real - why would you just plain lie about something so transparently false? A "couple thousand?" Really? That's how you describe the millions of people who are displaced by the conflict in Syria? Did you actually think that nobody else is the slightest bit informed, and that trotting out such nonsense would somehow score you some rhetorical points with especially low-information idiots? What were you thinking, exactly? Fascinating.

your stupid war

You meant the war between Assad and his own citizens who tried to get rid of him? Or the war between groups like ISIS and those in Syria who don't want to live under orthodox Islam or die because they don't? Is that the war you're thinking of? Yes, it would be much less of a conflict if Obama and Clinton hadn't made it worse, but it's not "our" war that people are fleeing by the hundreds of thousands. It's ISIS's war, and Assad's muddled mess that now includes Russian involvement.

And if you're so obtuse that you can't wrap your head around the fact that the US's immigration problems include an essentially unprotected border across which thousands of illegals regularly flow, a train wreck of an H1-B system, and huge numbers of people abusing our visa system, then please don't bother talking about it, because you're being willfully ignorant and are thus unable to say anything constructive until you gather some information into your head.

As for "dictating where iPhones can be manufactured" - please. Are you really going to pretend you're so uninformed that you can't understand that his point is to illustrate how poorly we (as a country, under the current administration) are handling trade relationships that we're getting screwed by countries like China that abuse that relationship? You don't "dictate where iPhones can be manufactured," you put in trade, tax, and banking policies that make China's corrupt, poisonous, currency-manipulating, repressive, territory-grabbing circumstances less appealing to companies like Apple.

And your attempt to paint a nice, sweet picture of Clinton by trotting out an example of how state, local, and even federal government thirst for tax revenue makes for perverse incentives when it comes to eminent domain (which is asked for thousands of times a year by everyone from parking lot contractors to farmers to classic real estate developers) ... remarkable. Your deliberate, willful, faux ignorance about the corruption and lies that are part of your preferred candidate's entire career would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.

Slashdot Top Deals

"How many teamsters does it take to screw in a light bulb?" "FIFTEEN!! YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?"