Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
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: Violence inspires violence (Score 1) 174

It's not scary at all and is in fact completely understandable.

Basically until World War I, for the vast majority of people, you either killed or you died. Even during the 1600's, arguably the beginning of "civilization" as something where violence was not commonplace, people still fought highly ritualized duels, countries still invaded other countries for the express purpose of taking their shit, people took and kept slaves, nations conquered and plundered and stole and all manner of violent actions. The only way, at the time, to stop your shit from being taken, to stop yourself being conquered and enslaved, was through violence.

If you were strong, you survived. If you were weak, or chose to be weak, you died. Those kinds of instincts were bred into us over tens of thousands of years of evolution, ruthlessly and yet apathetically selecting the strongest, most violent, people to carry on their genes. The guy who got to fuck all the women was the guy who could club all the other men on the head the best. Violence, and willingness to use it, until recently, was strongly evolutionarily selected for.

It was really only World War I and II that changed that. We got so fucking good at killing that we decided: hey, maybe lets try another way. Instead of having violence be the domain of all, where our nations raise vast armies of conscripts, let's instead have small, professional armies well supported with things like tanks, aircraft, machine guns, artillery, night vision, etc. They actually work better.

As a consequence of this, the vast majority of our citizens are now peaceful, but our armies are, in terms of overall ability to project force, more powerful than ever. The Roman Legions at their absolute height would get massacred by even the US Coast Guard, let alone the full might of the US Military. It would be a laughable massacre where I would fully expect 0 casualties from the US forces (excluding illnesses, accidents, etc) and 100% casualties from the Roman legions, assuming they fought to the last.

This is a change that's taken place over less than 100 years. That is a tiny blink in an evolutionary time period. We haven't changed and won't change for thousands of years because there's no evolutionary pressure on us to do so.

But, you know, I figure I should end on a slightly more upbeat note.

As much as "to the victor go the spoils" applies... no man rules alone.

A single man, no matter how powerful, no matter how violent or manly or tough, is defeated by many smaller, weaker people. Refer, again, to my example of the modern US Coast Guard versus the ENTIRE Roman Legion.

A single man cannot build an Apache gunship--and that gunship will fuck anyone. A single man cannot build a tank. A single man cannot build the complex logistical network to fuel an aircraft carrier, let alone maintain it, supply it with aircraft, sail it, coordinate strike missions, and generally put warheads on foreheads. A carrier-based strike mission to drop a single 500lb bomb requires the combined efforts of literally hundreds of thousands of people, probably millions. Just to deliver one bomb.

But, like I said, nothing can stand against it.

So. In the small picture, individual might makes right, but in the much larger broader sense, victory belongs to the cooperators.

As long as those cooperators put their collective talents towards fucking shit up.

Comment Re:Precedent (Score 1) 90

And it has all kinds of weird side effects.

For example, right now, if an OS update breaks an application, the onus is almost always on the application to update itself to work on the new platform (or throw in the towel).

However, if the law is changed such that upgrading an OS cannot remove functionality, what happens when, for example, Windows 11 arrives and Steam doesn't work on it, and Steam decides, "Well we're not fixing our app, and we're not going to work with you on a workaround, so... good luck getting people to upgrade hahahahahahaha".

It could be limited only to built-in services, but then, what happens when eventually (as is inevitable), Skydrive goes down for good? Skydrive is built into Windows 10 unless removed, and could be considered part of the OS (it's opt-out, rather than opt-in).

If the law changed, would Skydrive be a part of Windows forever and ever, and be essentially immortal?

Comment Going to get roasted alive for this... (Score 1) 376

... but it's actually not that bad. Comparable to Windows 7.

The new backup features are cool. Having volume shadow copies/file history baked in is neat.

The automatic restarting whenever an update comes in pisses me off, but I recognise that this is a necessary feature because so, so many people don't keep their machines up to date and (similar to immunization) that compromises the entire ecosystem.

Given it's basically free for me because I have a whole bunch of Windows 7/8 keys collected over the years, I'm okay with it. It seems good.

Comment Is it even possible to buy a new 32 bit chip? (Score 3, Insightful) 378

I think that the trouble finding testing hardware is quite telling.

Can end users even buy a new, off-the-shelf 32-bit system these days, except for specialized devices like embedded systems?

Is there anything more than a relatively tiny fraction of the user base that is stuck on 32-bit hardware, that can't use virtual machines to run that software on something that's not a potato?

And I mean, it's not like the old 32-bit versions of OS's are gone. Windows 95 is still around. It didn't go away. I'm willing to bet there are still Windows 95 machines running somewhere in mission critical systems in places around the world.

Yes, there's no security updates, but just unplug it from the internet and you're safe from the vast majority of attacks, and if you're worried about local access to your Windows 95 machine... install a thicker door?

At some point technology has to move on.

Comment Re:Women.... (Score 1) 499

The solution to this seems to be ludicrously simple. Why not simple help and encourage her to get a job, then use part of your combined incomes to hire a maid?

They'll probably do a better job (I'm guessing your girlfriend is not a professional cleaner), she'll be a lot happier, and your house will still be clean and livable. You'll probably also have much more money to throw around, too.

Seems like a win in every sense.

Comment Re: LOL (Score 4, Insightful) 410

Even if you're 100% not trolling (heh), it's still incredibly insensitive. Would you accept an Atheist posting something like, "Well, they're just hunks of meat and organs now, I don't get why we're spending so much money and effort worrying about something we can't change. They're dead, can't bring 'em back!".

Everyone of every religious creed (and none at all) can be total jerks. Would it be too much to ask to just at least pretend to be sympathetic?

Comment Re:Hilarious (Score 3, Insightful) 412

>Maybe the aliens are in contact with NASA/Government

If so, in't it much simpler for NASA to say to these aliens (who can travel between worlds easily), "Hey, don't fly in THIS specific spot during this specific time, by the way it's optical range for a shitty webcam on a fixed, predictable path, so like, it's really really tiny and SPACE IS BIG GUYS, just seriously avoid this tiny strip and you're fine."

That's like them saying, "Hey aliens, when you're visiting Earth and wandering around totally undisguised, try to avoid the front door NASA headquarters because we are filming a press release there today."

> The aliens might just be humoring the governments they're in contact with, they have no reason to hide from us or fear us

So now they're... just trolling us?

Space is big, so obviously, this is deliberate action. If they wanted to reveal themselves they wouldn't do so via a grainy image from the ISS; they could just appear over New York City and just hover for a while. If they wanted to hide, again, they could simply not be in this one specific spot at this one specific time.

> Space is big, observers are few, and non-official observers are easily discredited if something slips through

It's possible to discredit a few people, but with collaboration it becomes harder. I can concede an occasional independent voice may be silenced, but this kind of thing requires a competence that the US government has shown with literally no other part of its administration.

> The aliens might similarly be in contact with the other space-faring governments on the planet

That assumes that essentially the Chinese (current frenemies of the US), the EU (a group of many man disparate countries with plenty of quasi-rogue-state elements present), the Russians (traditional enemies of the US and relations are quite cold right now), the Indians (who are third-world aligned but lean toward Russia) would all agree to, under no circumstances, no matter how bad it got, no matter what, including things like the total collapse of the USSR which happened not all that long ago, or during heightened tensions such as Russia playing in the Syrian sandpit, or Russia invading Georgia, or Russia carving up the Ukraine, would never ever blab about this, ever.

It's the same problem with fake moon landings. The Russians had roughly equal instruments pointing toward the moon and tracked every US launch made there, and put their best minds to work analyzing it (for military purposes). If the landing was fake, they would laud this over the corrupt capitalist pig-dogs for all eternity, but even they acknowledge the US was really there.

Slashdot Top Deals

Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.