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


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

Comment Re:Question (Score 1) 380

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) 1126

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:Saturday Night Live VS. the internet (Score 1) 565

Thanks for the position clarification. As I said wasn't trying to troll or anything.

Sure the overthrow of one government can lead to a worse off state but at least the option exists to overthrow a bad one to gamble on the future. And people shooting themselves in the foot with poor leadership selection will never go away unless we can fix stupid. :-)

But I am still curious as to your answer. If voting fails to remove the undesired government what recourse is there left that wouldn't involve the need for violence that would work? Or what if the citizens dont even have the right to vote (see NK as an extreme example). What non violent options do they have?

Ultimately if people where more involved in politics we might get some better outcomes. However I think we are past the point of no return on that. I mean I look at our 2 options right now and think this is it? Crap.

Comment Re:Saturday Night Live VS. the internet (Score 1) 565

I doubt 99% of the citizens are prepared for war. Hell most only have enough food to last a few days. Then it gets even worse.

But serious question for you. If your position is (and I might not be 100% correct so I am not trying to be a troll or anything) people shouldn't have guns (or very very limited on everything gun related) and based on your statement above "If the Founding Fathers had intended citizens to be able to overthrow the government, maybe they wouldn't have made it a treasonous offense right in the Constitution" what recourse in your view does the citizenry have if the government no longer represents the will of the people / becomes something bad like history has shown happens?

If the government is to the point they don't give a rats ass about the citizens then voting won't do anything. So what solutions exist if the citizens aren't armed?

Comment Re:Saturday Night Live VS. the internet (Score 1) 565

Because, IMHO, ultimately that is one of the scenarios that the 2nd amendment covers. I am in the military and this type of scenario planning is done all the time. So yes I understand that this scenario involves citizens (military and not) killing each other.

At a very high level the debate of the 2A boils down to a person’s view on the purpose of the amendment:

Do the citizens of a country have an inalienable right to: a) over throw a government which becomes evil (which does mean civil war), and/or b) to defend themselves in instances where no government exists or where the rule of law cannot currently be enforced (i.e. New Orleans after Katrina when no LEO/Military were present and some of the LEO present where the ones doing the robbing/killing) and/or, c) if the country is invaded/occupied/conquered fight back, and/or d) the country collapses on itself because of financial ruin, and/or e) some combo of above?

If a person’s answer to the above is yes then one can easily defend/understand their position that citizens will need access to weapons. The cons of this is that some people will have access to weapons who shouldn’t and who will do evil things with them.

If a person’s answer is no then one can easily defend/understand their position that citizens should not have access to weapons. The con here is that is the citizens must believe that none of the defined scenarios above WILL EVER happen or if it does then the government will protect them (even from itself or even if the government no longer exists).

The discussions I have had with very anti 2A people is that they have a fundamental belief that in TODAYs world citizens don’t need guns but don't think about about TOMORROWs world. All things change and all things die. How the country/government looks today will not look the same in 1, 10, 100, 200, etc. years. Do you (generic you) believe that none of the scenarios I mentioned at the top will ever happen? Based on the history from the start of civilization one of things WILL happen. I would prefer when it does that the citizens have the means to at least try to defend themsevles

Comment Re:Saturday Night Live VS. the internet (Score 5, Interesting) 565

The argument is “Do you believe people with AR-15s” can defend against the US military? The answer is yes, no, and it depends. Let’s look at some numbers and assumptions (not perfect I know )

There are about 3M active personal across all branches of the military.
Not all 3M are combat roles. Tooth to tail ratios will come into play.
There are probably around 160M people fighting age (Ages 18 – 65).
There about 12M veterans
The continental US is much larger than Iraq and Afghanistan. This makes logistical support much harder
Defending is a lot harder than attacking.
The unknown of outside powers

Based on the above I believe that the citizens would win. 3M is not a lot of troops to hold a country as large as the US. And holding cities and key infrastructure takes a massive amount of troops, will, and logistical support. Iraq and Afghanistan have clearly shown that a technological inferior enemy can still “win” (think of overall money/lives lost/state of the countries now/etc) and the populations and size of the countries are much smaller.

Then you have tooth to tail rations to think about. If you don’t know what this is it means for a Combat Role (X) there needs to be (Y) amount of support staff for that combat role to be used/be effective. The current ratio for infantry is 1:7. Meaning you need 7 support people for that 1 infantry person to be effective. For fighter plans the ratios are much higher (I have seen figures 1:50. Maintenance, arms, flight planning, etc,).

So let’s say a f-15 pilot (or drone pilot) is ordered to bomb fellow citizens. If the pilot says yes and the support says yes the mission can happen. If the pilot says no and the support says yes the mission can’t happen (who is going to fly the plane the guy who refuels the aircraft?). If the pilot yes and the support says no the mission can’t happen (i.e. that one pilot is not getting the plane all ready to go). If the pilot says yes and not all 50 say yes then the mission can happen but at reduced efficiency.

Also if the military is used on the civilians the question becomes what percentage of the military will obey the order? 100% would not support the order, nor would 100% jump to the other side. So somewhere in between which means the military would be operating at a reduced efficiency. Plus defending something is a lot harder than attacking it. The defenders have to be alert 100% of the time while those attacking only have to be alert when they attack. If the US military is trying to defend a lot of critical infrastructure at once (electric, water, cities, food, ammunition, fuel, etc). The amount of combat troops they will have to launch attacks will be greatly reduced.

Sure you could maybe do conscription but history/data has shown that conscripted troops are less effective and could cause larger parts of the population to turn against you.

Also high tech weaponry (like drones, tanks, HIMARs, etc.) require huge logistical support. Disrupting that support (given size of country, number of civilians, etc) would probably not be as difficult as people think it is. Then you have to think about ROE. A lot would also depend of the ROE used and how evil the government is. Don’t care about your cities/population then artillery/bombing runs/etc. can start to mess up cities at the cost of the people hating you more. Decide the ROE is to spare cities and people then your artillery/bombers/etc are pretty useless.

I think the key comes down to which sides the citizens decide to support. The veterans will be able to provide military experience and tactics for those who oppose the military. The military itself will fracture. And who knows what the outside powers will do? Of course they will get involved but in what fashion (selling arms, sending over troops, taking land, etc).

Comment Re:yet more poor design. (Score 1) 113

From a security standpoint you shouldn't be using antivirus software for real-time scanning. These issues have been known for years and keep occurring ( https://www.blackhat.com/prese...
). Antivirus vendors have been screwing up too often - false positives (blacklisting OS files etc), being exploitable (like this), being unstable, using too much resources.

Real time AV scanning should only be used by people who are incompetent enough to screw up their own systems (or let malware do it) more often than a AV company would. If you know what you are doing you wouldn't be using real-time AV scanning. You'd only scan certain stuff using sacrificial machines and more as a precaution and additional layer of defence.

Comment Yawn (Score 1) 74

So when are we going to get this: https://threatpost.com/ibm-unv...

I mean it's not like I've been waiting or asking for it for years: https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

Shared key WPA2 means that anyone who knows the shared key can decrypt other people's traffic if they managed to sniff the 4-way handshake messages:

It's true using WiFi means you still have to trust the entity providing it, but that's the same with a wired network or using an ISP.

To those who say "use VPNs" I'd say:
1) Defense in depth
2) that's a different layer - just because you can workaround a broken layer doesn't mean the broken layer isn't broken. The fact is the layer already has encryption but it has a broken implementation which can be improved.

Comment Even simpler (Score 4, Insightful) 451

Hahaha. It's even simpler than that. Everyone seems to be making the assumption that the cars will be such driving geniuses. That's not going to happen for quite a long while.

0) We all know that stopping in the middle of the highway is dangerous, BUT the way the laws are written in most countries, it's practically always your fault if you drive into the rear of another vehicle especially if it didn't swerve into your path and merely braked suddenly, or worse was stationary for some time.

1) Thus for legal and liability reasons the robot cars will be strictly obeying all convincing posted speed limits (even if they are stupidly slow by some mistake, or by some prankster), and will stick to speeds where they would be able to brake in time to avoid collisions or at least fatal collisions. Whichever is slower.

2) In most danger situations the robot cars will brake and try to come to a stop ASAP all while turning on its hazard lights. Which shouldn't be too difficult at those said speeds.

3) If people die because of tailgating it's the tailgater's fault. Same if the driver behind doesn't stop.

4) There are hardware/software failures then it's some vendors fault.

5) If braking won't avoid the problem even at "tortoise speeds", in most cases fancy moves wouldn't either. In the fringe cases where fancy moves would have helped but braking wouldn't AND it would be the robot car's fault if it braked, the insurance companies would be more than willing to take those bets.

The odds of the car being designed to do fancier moves to save lives are practically zero. If I was designing the car I wouldn't do it - imagine if the car got confused and did some fancy moves to "avoid collision" and killed some little kids. In contrast if it got confused and came to stop ASAP if any little kids are killed it would more likely be someone else's fault.

If you are a human driver/cyclist/motorcyclist you better not tailgate such cars.

Look at the Google car accident history, most of the accidents were due to other drivers. Perhaps I'm wrong but my guess is it's because of "tailgating". Those drivers might still believe the AI car was doing it wrong but the law wouldn't be on their side.

Comment Re:definitely due to the rise of the populist righ (Score 0) 693


and obviously it's ignorant

americans are feeding crony financial parasites and getting nothing in return "because capitalism" when it's not capitalism at all

and never can be capitalism: capitalism is pretty wonderful but only works in certain economic sectors. it's not magic unicorn farts you sprinkle on anything and then everything is fixed because magic, which is unfortunately the extent of many americans' understanding of capitalism

Comment definitely due to the rise of the populist right (Score 0, Troll) 693

like you see with trump in the usa

and, like trump, it's financially and politically retarded

scotland will leave, and northern ireland may, and britain will suffer a number of financial costs it has to pay now

so now britain is significantly poorer and weaker

all because some old morons don't like immigrants

the real issue is why these people are so angry, and the obvious answer is they feel poor while they perceive immigrants as coddled

and they are poor... because of plutocratic abuses, not immigrants

plutocratic abuses the political *left* has answers to

but the old morons reject the left for various stupid and propagandistic reasons

like americans rejecting universal healthcare, even though it's far cheaper and equal or higher quality. because "capitalism." when it's just cronyism

old poor morons like plutocrats to have gold toilets i guess, and are too fucking stupid to see how or why that's all their uneducated opinions lead to

Comment Re:This is awful (Score 1) 249

Those people do exist. The ones at WWDC were acting like fake, soulless versions of those people to get the check boxes. It was cringeworthy to say the least. Maybe pandering? I am not sure if you watched it yet but the general reaction to it was obvious pandering.

Or maybe it was too scripted and so forced that made it come off awful/soulless/*insert a better phrase if you can think of one*. I mean look at the woman who did the apple music demo. Let us get the audience to rap along. Really?

Slashdot Top Deals

Time-sharing is the junk-mail part of the computer business. -- H.R.J. Grosch (attributed)