Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:My decision to not get thes 'free' crap... (Score 1) 370


Any, or all, of those seem to be safe to use. Try one, or try them all. They mostly duplicate each other's measures, but they aren't quite all the same, either.

Comment Re:Court motions are not news (Score 5, Insightful) 122

Oracle didn't do any work on Java. Sun did. Sun invested a lot of time and money into Java, then ultimately, turned it over to outside developers. Sun still held "title" to Java, I suppose, but they did little to nothing to "protect" their copyright. Open sourced, freely distributed, outside developers encouraged to develop, and tacit consent given to use Java however the hell you want to use it.

Let's put this in perspective. You make something, and you allow all your neighbors to use that something. Let's say it's a water park. All the kids in town come to your place to play in the water. After a few years, I come along, and offer you some money for your water park, and you take the money. With the water park safely in my possession, I start suing all the families in town for using the water park.

Does that scenario make ANY sense to you? I sure as hell hope not.

In my most honest opinion, Oracle has no claim to anything that has been done with Java. If, and only if, Oracle develops some new aspect of Java, then Oracle will have full right and title to those newly explored aspects of Java. At least until someone reverse engineers it, and reproduces the results with different code.

Comment Re: NUKE ORACLE (Score 1) 122

Be careful with making absolute statements. Oracle has done a few things that seem to be worthwhile. Oracle has given in to pressure from outside groups. I don't like Oracle at all, but they can sometimes be reasoned with. Not much, but some, anyway. As I recall, SCO couldn't be reasoned with at all, on any issue. So, no, Oracle is not the most useless ever. I don't care to research historical companies that might have been worse than either Oracle or SCO, but I would guess that they can be found. You and I are simply unaware of them because they didn't affect us.

Comment Re:what a wonderful program (Score 5, Insightful) 565

Not good enough an excuse, Bubba. The spouse of this Clinton signed a bill that established mandatory minimum prison sentences for crimes commonly committed by black folk - but didn't sign any similar bill for crimes more commonly committed by white people. As a result of those racist attitudes, millions of predominantly black young men have spent years, even decades, in prison.

The Clintons are far more racist that Trump.

BTW - "illegal alien" isn't a race. Get a clue, alright?

Comment Re:not much of a hunter, are you? (Score 4, Interesting) 1718

I know, and I hope that you know, that if you walk into Wal-Mart, and ask for a box of .22 bullets, the sales clerk will reach for a box of bullets with a lable that says .22 He or she may ask if you want .22 Long Rifle, but probably not, because almost all .22 ammo sold these days is Long Rifle.

Now, if you purchase that box of .22 ammo, carry it home, and load your AR with it, you'll probably not be able to fire the damned thing at all. The .22 cartridges are going to rattle around in the magazine, and never make it into the chamber. Even if you stuff a .22LR into the chamber, close the breech, and pull the trigger, it probably isn't going to fire - it's a rimfire, vs the center fire firing pin.

Let us dismiss the common .22LR for now.

I know, and I certainly hope that you know, that chambering the wrong center fire round into your center fire rifle is quite likely to result in your serious injury or death. You can play cute with terminology here, but not all ".22 caliber rifles" are the same. As you point out, the chamber isn't .22 caliber at all - the damned chamber MIGHT BE as much as an inch in diameter. The chamber tells you what size the cartridge needs to be to fit the chamber.

So far, you've not made any points that aren't obvious to anyone who knows his weapons.

Perhaps in your state, the law says that you must use bullets that are .30 or greater - I don't know what your law actually says. But I find that hard to believe. I've taken big game with .243 and .270. My dad has taken big game with a .22 Hornet - that was the only rifle he could afford to buy all those years ago before WW2. That Hornet is a sweet little gun - but it wouldn't be legal to use for big game today in either my home state, or my adopted state. It is, indeed, a .22 The .222 and the .223 are legal. The weight of the bullet, the powder charge, and even the diameter of the bullet sets them all apart from the .22.

Just give it up - you mis-spoke, and now you're trying to justify what you said. You simply cannot push all those rounds you've mentioned through the barrel of a .22 rifle. Each of them will damage the barrel, if not the chamber. Eventually, the damned rifle might even blow apart in your hands.

There's a reason why shooters are taught to always check their weapon and their ammunition to see that they match.

Comment not much of a hunter, are you? (Score 2) 1718

.2A .22 is a relatively low powered rimfire cartridge.

An AR-15 is not a .22, it is a center fire rifle, commonly available in .223 (not to be confused with .22) 5.56x45mm .300, 7.52x39mm 5.45x39mm .45ACP 5.7x28mm 6.5mm 6.8mm .50 and .458

There probably are some AR-15's manufactured in .22 calibre, but it most isn't "common".

Comment Heh (Score 1) 357

Cool. I didn't understand you, TBH, and I was just letting is slide as something stupid. But, now I see what happened - - - I browse everything. Sometimes those AC's write something worth reading, but you gotta wade through a lot of crap to get anything "good". And, TBH, I shouldn't have fed the troll to whom I replied.

Comment Re: Well, it is a FREE service (Score 1) 131

Most advertising is offensive. That has been understood by the advertising industry since it's infancy. If you want to watch a movie, you "pay" by watching our advertising. If you want to read some online content, you "pay" by allowing us to use your bandwidth to serve offensive content. You'll get to the content that you wanted to see, as soon as you've finished wasting a minute or more of your time watching our offensive content. You've got to pay, or you don't get your content.

I've about decided to remove CNN from among my news feeds, for that reason. I want the news, I don't want to watch the drivel force fed to my computer by their stupid assed scripts. About one or two more annoying ads is all it will take, then their best click bait won't lure me in anymore.

Comment Free? (Score 2) 131

The internet isn't free. Taxpayers, like myeslf, have paid for much of it. Paying customers of ISP's, like myself, have paid for much more of it. Basically, all of us sitting on our asses in front of a computer screen have PAID FOR the internet.

Google Scholar and the like? There has been a lot of discussion about academic papers. Taxpayers, like myself, have paid for a great deal of that content. Virtually every research project in the nation has qualified for grants - taxpayer money. Many, if not most, research projects, wouldn't exist without those grants. We've PAID FOR that content. If we aren't whole owners, then taxpayers certainly have an interest in that content.

So, in effect, we have entire industries, capitalizing on the taxpayer's property.

Let us rephrase your question - When DID corporate America expecting free reign over America's property become acceptable?

Oh - the employer? Many of them DO expect you to work for free. Have you been keeping up with current events? Let's take Mickey D's. They take a decent worker, who is making one hell of a lot of money for Mickey's. He is much more profitable than the average dickweed, so they offer him/her a deal. "How would you like to be a manager trainee? In a few years, you can become a manager yourself!" Sounds good, huh? Except, the trainee actually gets a salary based on minimum wage for 40 hours per week - then is required to work 60 to 80 hours. Mickey's isn't alone, either. It's common practice around this nation to exploit more profitable employees in this manner.

Paperwork. Ever been told that you've got to clock out, but you've got to complete paperwork afterward? It happens.

Bosses everywhere will take advantage of you, if you aren't assertive.

Comment Re:Better idea. (Score 1) 352

First aid. Everyone uses it at some point, eventually. Yet, almost no one ever bothers to learn it. I spent the time and money, went to class at the University of Maine, Machias, to learn how to save lives. I did my ER hours at the Down East Medical Center, Bangor. I've never earned a dime with that knowledge. One might say it was a total waste of time and effort, for that reason.

But, the subject is coding, right? Computer skills that amount to more than "Learning the Microsoft Way". I agree with Cook (this time - the man does run at the mouth a lot). You can't go wrong by learning some computer skills. If for no other reason, it could save a kid's life one day. The poor frazzled IT guy who is trying to help the poor young fool to fix his computer will be far less tempted to shoot the ignorant shit if he can carry on an intelligent conversation.

Ideally, the kid won't ever have to call the IT guy, because he's smart enough to fix all the obvious problems, as well as most of the less obvious. He'll know enough to start by brewing a pot of coffee, pour a cup of that coffee, and place it in the cup holder provided on the front of the computer.

Comment Re:I'd argue we need moalready to mucre humanities (Score 0, Flamebait) 352

The schools are already busy teaching kids to be wimpy little fucks, and know-nothings. They don't need to be teaching "humanities" IMO. No, I don't want to swing the pendulum to far the other direction either. We don't need to turn kids into gangstas. How about something right down the middle. Teach boys to be boys, which includes a little rough and tumble, skinned knees, playing with knives, and other "boy" things. There's nothing wrong with encouraging little girls to pursue traditionally "masculine" goals, like sports, STEM, etc, but FFS stop emasculating little boys.

Slashdot Top Deals

Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!