Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Re:Feeding the trolls (Score 1) 810

His statement was that Mexican's are rapists and murders, but allowed that some of them are good people. Deconstructing that, he's categorized them as criminals in general, but allowed that a minority are exceptions to the generalization. Sure, take out all of the editorialization. A lot of it is sensationalism, But just analyse the text of his actual statements, and he's still about as bad as they come.

Oh, and you could certainly say that that reporter was not "safely attacked". But it was still clearly assault. And if you or I went up to a woman and pulled that stunt, we'd be prosecuted for it, and that would be entirely appropriate.

Comment Re: Hmm (Score 1) 810

Nice in theory. But the reality is that either Trump or Clinton is going to be president. The closest thing to a viable 3rd-party I've seen in my lifetime (and I was a kid at the time) was Perot in the early '90s. He had much better numbers than either Johnson or Stein and even he got soundly trounced.

And Johnson and Stein have their own issues. Johnson is woefully ignorant on foreign affairs, to the point that I have to believe that it's willful. He just plays it off in an "aw shucks" manner as opposed to Trump's overt cluelessness. And Stein is an economically ignorant, anti-science, anti-vaxxer loon.

If the Republicans hadn't presented a candidate that's just so bloody overwhelmingly and irredeemably awful... like if they'd nominated Kasich, Graham, Pataki, or even Jeb; I might have been inclined to just leave that part of my ballot blank and say "a pox on all your houses". But they didn't. They didn't just offer up one of the unreasonable and terrible candidates from their lineup. They chose absolutely the worst one out of the whole lot.

So I'm voting strategically. I may not like the 2-party system. Hell, I think there'd be a lot to be said for scrapping the whole thing in favor of a Westminster-style parliamentary system where minor parties can cooperate and have a reasonable shot at shuffling the majors aside and forming a coalition government. But the 2-party system is what we have. And it's ignorant to not recognize and understand that.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 810

Putin doesn't have to be a madman though. He's an old-school ex-KGB totalitarian thug. And he's on-record as pining for the "good old" days of the cold war, the KGB, and the USSR, describing the dissolution of the latter as: "The greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century". That makes him plenty loathsome and dangerous even as a 100% sane and rational actor.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 810

You know, there is a reason that a huge chunk of those eastern European countries that Russia dominated during the cold war have been so anxious to strengthen western ties, and even join NATO in some cases, these last couple decades. And it's not because the Russians are awesome and peace-loving and all-around good neighbors to have at their doorstep.

I'm not saying that the US is all peaches-and-cream. We have our share of domestic problems, and engage in too much foreign adventurism. But compared to Russia? Come on.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 810

Missile defences in Poland and Romania were never of use against Russia nukes in the first place. As another poster mentioned, the geometry makes interceptors in those locations useful against Iranian missiles if their nuclear program comes to fruition. But Russian missiles would be launched northward over the pole, not westward over the Atlantic. So to anyone who knows geometry and ballistics... and Russia has their share of people who do... it's perfectly clear that Russian objections to those interceptors are not at all about their security or the new weapons they had in the pipeline, but were nothing more than a grandstanding pissing match.

Comment Re:Tzar Bomba (Score 2) 810

Sure. But effectively destroying a country as an entity is one thing. "Wiping out an area the size of" a country is something else entirely. And the text specifies the latter. And I'm not even convinced that destroying a countries 15 largest cities would totally destroy it as a country. See, for example, the still very much in existence countries that had many of their cities wiped out in WW2.

Importantly though, France and the UK have nukes of their own. And if you target the cities with your 15 nukes, you leave the weapons untouched. And if you target the weapons and facilities; not only are the cities untouched, but there's still the nuclear missile submarines that you can't target because you don't know where the hell they are.

Comment Re:welcome america to MATH 101 (Score 3, Informative) 810

No, it wouldn't. Nuclear weapons may be the most destructive thing we know how to build. But they're not black magic. And witless alarmism does no one any good. A 400MT nuke airbursted over Paris at the optimum height would pretty well wipe out it, its suburbs, and quite a lot of the surrounding countryside. But the majority of France would survive. and the UK would be untouched:

Comment Re:Sweet tears (Score 1) 112

Maybe it'd solve privacy in reality. But it wouldn't solve privacy in the minds of the narcissists who think the camera is there to record them. And if their minds were grounded in reality instead of their self-importance, they'd already realize that the vast and overwhelming majority of people don't care about them and aren't trying to spy on them in the first place.

Comment Re:Sweet tears (Score 1) 112

> And there is your problem. Operating it out of line-of-
> sight. Perhaps the Swedish ruling is based on the
> nature of constitutes acceptable use, and out of line-> of-sight does not meet their criteria.

And that would be a fine and sensible restriction. I have my own doubts about bandwidth and autopilot issues on consumer-level kit operated by uncertified amateurs that make that sound like a reasonable safety precaution. And if I were to drop... What do they start at? $800?... on essentially a toy, I don't think I'd want to let it out of sight while flying it anyway.

But if the issue really is out of line-of-sight operation, then that's the restriction that should be put in place, not the one on cameras. And don't cater to the "ZOMG, everybody wants to record me, ME, ME" mob.

Comment Re:Sweet tears (Score 1) 112

Your argument still presumes, though, that the only reason for the camera to be on the drone is to film the people in the FOV of the camera. And really, it doesn't matter if the operator is present or not. The principle is the same. The cameras are required for very legitimate and perfectly innocent reasons that have nothing to do with spying on anyone. A drone needs a camera to manually navigate the thing whilst out of line-of-sight. And (the eventual successors of) Google Glass requires a camera for augmented reality overlays within the user's FOV to function.

Comment Re:Supply and Demand - where is the demand? (Score 1) 424

Here in California, a couple gun shops tried to stock and offer a smart gun. This one didn't use a fingerprint scanner, it came with a watch with an RFID chip, and validated that connection to fire. And it wasn't even the sort of gun anyone would use in a "life or death" situation. It was a little .22LR pistol, the likes of which would probably only be bought as a gimmick by collectors. (It even *looks* like something Q-branch would issue to 007.) It was the Armatix iP1:

It never got the chance to succeed or fail in the market. The NRA types flipped their shit, demanded that the store stop selling it, called for boycotts, and even fired off death threats against the store's owner. So even if you wanted one, you can't buy one because the pro-gun people don't want you to be allowed to own one. The hypocrisy there is so thick you could cut it with a cake knife.

How about this: Take a page from your own book. I hear the "if you don't like guns then don't buy one" like a lot when topics revolving around gun control come up. So if you don't want a smart gun, then don't buy one; and lay off the manufacturers and stores that try to introduce them. If enough other people want smart guns, STFU and let them succeed in the market. If enough other people don't, let them fail on their own accord.

Comment Re:I'm glad somebody is on the case (Score 2) 191

Amazon lets third party sellers use their platform. The fakes are usually stocked and sold by these, and not Amazon themselves. And they don't make it especially obvious that you're not actually buying from Amazon either. I wish to hell they'd either knock off the crap, or at lease give me the option to see only items sold by Amazon themselves. You can separate out most of the shysters by filtering only for items available with Amazon Prime. But some of the crooks still get through. You can see these with the "Sold by $x, fulfilled by Amazon" text.

Comment Re:easily made up in peripherals. (Score 1) 522

Oh, so much FUD...

Eh? If your company is spending money on Beats by Dre headphones for any reason other than you've been hired by Apple to produce marketing collateral, you're a bunch of fools. They're crap. Apple didn't but Beats for their hardware. They bought Beats for Jimmy Iovine and his music industry experience and relationships.

The "Magic" lineup is actually quite good kit, so far as I've experienced. I don't like the keyboard, but that's personal preference because I like the full-sized keyboards and those extra USB ports are handy. The trackpad is fantastic though. I switched from a mouse after consulting with my doctor; and pretty much every hint of carpal was gone in less than six months. (Suffice it to say, I don't use the Magic Mouse though. So it could very well be utter crap for all I know.) And pinching pennies over peripherals is just stupid as hell. The cost of buying your people gear that is ergonomically correct for their needs... even if you go full out with the top-of-the-line Kinesis lineup... is TRIVIAL compared to reduced productivity, increased health insurance costs, and the potential for workman's comp claims, if RSI becomes a problem.

And there's no voodoo to restoring a Mac. You can maintain an official image and clone it to the hard drive just like any windows or Linux box. Or if you want a "out of the retail box" state, you just boot into recovery, start the install, and go do something else while it does its thing.

Slashdot Top Deals

Enzymes are things invented by biologists that explain things which otherwise require harder thinking. -- Jerome Lettvin