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: "3 whole buttons to talk to Nana? Bullshit!" (Score 1) 114

I routinely use Hangouts for video calling because most of the people I know use Gmail and have Google accounts, and it tends to be very easy. I've used it cross-platform with Linux, windows, Android, etc with no problems. I have found that it tends to have higher video quality compared to Skype and it's easy to have a conversation with multiple participants who can join and leave at their leisure.

Comment Re:Question (Score 1) 519

plateauing at a level where they can afford everything they want to consume

Are you f-ing kidding me?
In what alternate universe can the author live to write utter dreck like that?

Any hood will tell you they want to live in a mansion with a pool, servants, drive Ferraris, and get served caviar by scantily clad objects of desire with champagne on the side.

There is no plateau.

Comment Re: The Republicans want to make everyone work (Score 5, Interesting) 1145

That's bullshit. My family came into this country as refugees with almost nothing. We depended on social services while my parents were learning English. I earned my way into school, got a scholarship to go to college. I worked my ass off in college to have a high GPA, worked 20+ hours a week in a lab in addition. I earned my way into an MD PhD program and didn't have to pay for medical school... worked my way into residency and fellowship. In the meantime my parents are earning 5 figures.

United States is the most amazing country in the world, where opportunity is still pretty open. I am so thankful to be here.

For duck's sake, please don't turn it into the country I ran away from.

Comment Re: Say what you will (Score 4, Informative) 231

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

At least in the United States, the intent of the Founders was specifically to discourage that interpretation. You don't need to be granted the right to unbreakable encryption, it is reserved for you by default.

Comment Re: Why just Gmail? How far do you want to go toda (Score 3, Interesting) 284

The problem is that this is the precise definition of slippery slope. As attractive as it would be to scan for such content legally, this is not the kind of toys we want the government to have. Would the government as with a foreign enemy, we should be discussing capabilities, not intentions. The one inescapable truth is that any capabilities of a bureaucratic entity are going to be abused. If you don't want the abuse, don't give them these capabilities took begin with.

Comment Re: no, just no (Score 1) 353

This is as brilliant as their gun control agendas, which now want to include prohibition on buying enough ammunition to go target shooting for longer than 15 minutes per year. When the legislators are so removed from reality, it's just a symptom of public that is so exquisitely scared that they are willing to support notions that are clearly against their interests, with a far higher probability of causing harm than good.

Comment Re:Doublethink (Score 1) 190

...which is that some people in the U.S. legitimately believe that the 2nd Amendment is archaic and needs to be restricted a bit more... ...and I respect people who think we should make some changes...

The same polls also show that the majority of the US is willing to be under surveillance for a promise of fighting terrorist, pedophiles, etc...

What I do NOT respect are people who think we should just "reinterpret" the plain text to mean something new and different from the original

You mean like the 2nd amendment? You do realize, that the founding fathers would have thought that the "liberal" interpretation of the 2nd amendment to restrict INDIVIDUAL rights, was the definition of the government overstepping its bounds and exactly what they were TRYING to prevent.

If you're willing to lose one right for the promise of safety, you should be willing (and you will) lose them all.

Comment Doublethink (Score 5, Insightful) 190

And why is it that you yourself, while acting as if you care about constitutional rights, disparage those who support the right to be armed? I don't want a random person deciding which of my rights I should or shouldn't have based on their individual biases. I want them all.

Those who support infringing your right to privacy while supporting the 2nd amendment are making a terrible mistake. But by directing your anger towards them and supporting infringing on the right they hold dear, you are not only making the same mistake, but you are also playing into the hands of those who are perfectly happy taking our rights away a little bit at a time.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that your ACLU card can't live next to an NRA one, or that the EFF membership depends on you having a specific political allowance as opposed to being committed to preserving as many rights as we can.

It's good to have different opinions and a debate... But once you say that you're okay sacrificing one right for the false hope of security, just because you don't care to exercise it, you don't get to argue for preservation of others against a similar promise of safety.

Slashdot Top Deals

Anything free is worth what you pay for it.

Working...