Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



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

Comment Re:Right on schedule (Score 1) 560

The new studies that show new, ominous sounding but nebulous effect of Marijuana use are beginning to appear. They always appear whenever Marijuana laws are being relaxed. The same thing happened in the UK a few years back when the police said they would no longer actively pursue arrests of Marijuana users. These studies are to be ignored. Legalization and governmental control of who can purchase and grow Marijuana are both enlightened and necessary to move forward. The anti-drug laws and their deleterious effects on individuals and society must first be eliminated before their past effects can be reversed. Legalize and then empty the prisons of those jailed exclusively for possession, use, and sale of Marijuana. Make it illegal for companies to test and discipline/fire their employees for substances found that have been confiscated from their employees' bodily fluids. This needs to be the real deal, otherwise it will be reversed in a heartbeat.

They shouldn't be ignored. There's a possibility it could be true. The research needs to be duplicated, many times by more than 1 research team. Only then will the credibility be challenged, confirmed or refuted. We needs lots of testing. Personal experience isn't a valid test.

Comment Re:Here come the science deniers (Score 1) 560

Agreed, and I expect that as more states legalize pot the more the opioid and alcohol industries will fund "studies" to show the horrible dangers of THC. Forget about the facts that alcohol and opioids kill tens of thousands of people each year in the US. Forget about all the traffic accidents and domestic violence tied to alcohol abuse. Everyone knows pot is safer than alcohol, opioids and tobacco. But that won't stop the research into the "dangers" of pot.

Most people that want marijuana legalized for medical purposes don't give a rats ass about the THC component. They want the cannabis part which is what contains all the healing properties we're aiming for. People that are obscenely stoned are just as much of a danger on the road as someone who is drunk. Which also means marijuana will never be legalized at work. Something people don't understand either.

Comment Re:And us too - soon (Score 1) 394

FBI and NSA Poised to Gain New Surveillance Powers Under Trump

All because you sheeple want to feel safe.

"People want to be slaves" - Academy Award nominated director I work out with.

Face it, the people don't want to really be free. They want to feel safe above all else. They are so afraid of terrorism when the fact is they are most likely to die from complications of their obesity or from a car accident because they were distracted while they were updating their facebook page.

We have freedom though. There's not a single thing in life I couldn't do outside of driving and drinking ages that I've been restricted from doing. There's this perception that your freedom is being taken away just because the government can see what you're doing. Quite frankly they don't give a flying fuck unless you're doing bad things.

Comment Re: Article is pretty light on details (Score 1) 522

What is it with crazy Americans claiming that candidate XYZ will surely start nuking everything the day he gets into office, whenever there's someone to be elected?

George W Bush would've nuked the Middle East if it didn't have such a negative public opinion. He was itching (this was quoted many times) to invade Iraq weeks after being sworn in back in 2000. 9/11 just helped green light the invasion.

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 472

Apple tried to manufacture the iPhone in the US initially. The reason they didn't wasn't wages - in highly automated mass production, wages are a tiny percentage of cost of goods. The "deal breaker" was that the US didn't have enough industrial engineers to manage the production lines. Apple would have had to hire 100% of the new graduates from all US universities for 3 years to have enough engineering management to run the lines. The secondary issue is supply lines. All of the suppliers manufacture in or near Foxconn in China, so they can iterate on designs in hours, rather than weeks (shipping). So, to be in market years earlier, and with maximum agility, Apple had to be in China. Manufacturing on a large scale in the US was killed long before the iPhone launched.

Bullshit. There's people at Foxconn that come right out of high school to work in those factories. The excuse about highly technical workers is a sham. Yes in some parts they need skilled workers but the brunt of the work is done through slave labor.

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 472

Don't see any problem with singling a certain company or product out for tax persecution, eh?

Wait until it's the company you work for, or your political enemies are in office

It targets advantage of any and every company that takes advantage of China's slave labor and tax evasion tactics. Apple still makes billions in profit each year. Slashing that a bit to become legit will only effect their stock price. It won't in any way hinder their development.

Comment Re:Overload it. (Score 1) 359

Get a program that will load a thousand random websites every hour. When millions of subscribers will each load 24000 websites every day, the storage will quickly overflow, and if the ISPs feel the pain, they are better placed than John Q. Public to effect pressure on the government.

You act like tech today is in the stone ages. Software has the means to dump useless, duplicate data when creating a repository based on digital signatures given to the content when archiving it. You can also take snapshots off diffs so if you are logging an entire website, the only new data required to backup are the changes. Unless a website completely renovates itself everyday the storage will be very little.

Comment Re:At huge cost to the ISPs (Score 1) 359

The law will force internet providers to record every internet customer's top-level web history in real-time for up to a year

That is a lot of data the ISPs will have to store. I assume they're going to store logs from their DNS servers, for every little DNS request.

Like many have said. The government already has access to all this information. This just makes it legal to do what they were already doing.

Comment Re:Truly despicable (Score 1) 359

So there isn't a problem of mass bombings and violence? And is this violence coming from a select group of people?

When was the last time there was a mass bombing or mass violence in the UK?

Well they all but banned any kind of firearm so that eliminates the mass violence. There was a bombing a few years ago.

Comment Re:Makes perfect sense - it's their next phase (Score 1) 202

Microsoft is completely done selling operating systems and software the way they were previously. Everything they're doing is 100% dedicated to getting people over to Azure, spending money by the hour forever rather than getting a one-time license payment. The company I work for is building a huge new project in Azure and it's amazing how much money Microsoft makes just by keeping data centers running on their services from failing...the bills are thousands per month and we're a tiny customer.

If they can make that much money just keeping the power and Internet flowing, why not outsource the development of operating systems to Linux? In that case joining the Linux Foundation makes sense. Windows Server 2016 is probably going to be the last "boxed" release of server software from them -- the push is to move workloads to Azure Service Fabric and rebuild everything as microservices anyway. All of their products are moving to the "Azure first" development model -- release everything to Azure first, then box it up as of a certain date and ship it to customers who want to pay for on-site licenses.

In about 10 or 15 years, Microsoft will be where IBM is now -- they will have an assured stream of perpetual revenue coming from customers who aren't locked into a particular OS, but are locked into them as a service provider. (True, you can switch cloud providers, but did I mention they're making it insanely easy for Microsoft customers to migrate in from the on-premises world?)

For most companies hosting your applications in the cloud is cheaper than running a data center, populating it with equipment, maintenance and hiring staff to work on it. Just because it seems expensive means you didn't price out the alternative.

Comment Re:LF charter should ban maker of competing OSs (Score 1) 202

and by Microsoft including Ubuntu inside Windows desktop environments,

It allows Microsoft to control the Ubuntu "experience" and blame Ubuntu for any user dissatisfaction when it is really a Windows container problem. "Look, see, you can run Ubuntu and doesn't Windows actually run much better and faster?"

it allows hundreds of millions of users try Ubuntu without having to wipe their disk, re-partition it, install a hypervisor

Hundreds of millions of users can already run Ubuntu without having to do any of that. I have two USB sticks with Xubuntu on them that boot just fine on my Windows computers, and that's a 16.4 version, I think. Making that stick was absolutely trivial -- I used a bootable Xubuntu DVD and told it to install on /dev/sde.

Not two days ago I came across a bag full of old USB sticks and one of them has a label "Ubuntu" on it. It was much harder to make back in them good ole days, but it, too, is a Ubuntu system unencumbered by an underlying Windows OS.

how exactly does preventing large donors from donating "help" the Linux Foundation?

It doesn't. But preventing large donors who have a vested interest in the failure of Linux as FOSS does. Isn't /. the forum where we hear regular diatribes against large campaign donations because they "buy" the political system? Isn't there a parallel here?

As for the summary saying how great it is that it bring "SQL Server" to Linux, I say "why?" MySQL, Postgres, and a handful of other, better, databases already exist. What does SQL Server add?

Yes of course. Everyone should have to run their OS off a USB stick. What the hell. Integration is the path to success. Keeping them separate will continue down the path of 0 acceptance of Linux on the Desktop except for power users.

Comment Re:What about the far-left? (Score 1) 978

Does that mean a baker doesn't have to bake a cake for a gay couple? They are both private companies, yet one gets to decide who uses their service based on political ideology.

At least with Twitter it can be argued that it is a platform for speech and as such the law should reflect Twitters impact on political discourse and outcomes on elections. Just like a town-square you cannot be kicked out for racist speech and yes it doesn't mean you have to listen it (walk away or block people. the power is in the individual not the state). AT&T was determined critical and cannot limit its service on political ideology so there is legal precedent.

Are platforms of speech critical to political discourse in the country and should they be protected? If not, then why is it different for a baker exercising their constitutionally protected religious belief with their private company?

Freedom of speech is not covered by private entities. Nor is your speech protected once it becomes hate speech. You are then subject to local and federal law.

Comment Re:Ob. xkcd (Score 2) 978

Bullshit. At one point AT&T / 'Ma Bell' were private entity that could do what they like. Now they are regulated. Once society feels something is important enough / would hinder human interaction enough... it can indeed be regulated much like MOST non-gov entities in existance. Facebook and Twitter have already surpassed that standard. These companies make use of a publicly created and funded system: the internet. They can not have it both ways and claim to be private and still benefit from the public. Much like a taxi cab company can not use the public roads and discriminate against groups of people. That or are you OK with the phone companies all not selling to black people, women, homosexuals, and other groups... as they are simply a 'private platform'?

One example is discrimination. The other is not pandering or supporting hate or terrorist speech. They are two completely different things. Freedom of speech is only protected when it is peaceful. Once it becomes hate speech you are subject to state and federal laws. Businesses are liable as well when supporting your platform of hate. None of that has to do with refusing to sell services to a specific race. That is illegal.

Slashdot Top Deals

On a clear disk you can seek forever.

Working...