Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:Ob. xkcd (Score 1) 978

Actually, starting a business is exactly what gives the government the right to hit you with additional rules and regulations. You are voluntarily entering into a public commerce agreement with the government, as you have to get a business licence and to get that licence, you agree to abide by the rules and regulations required for that industry as set by your county, state and federal government. By setting up a public front where you solicit money from the public, you agree to serve the entire public, not just the portion of the public you see fit to serve (unless they commit a violation that allows you to refuse service). Christian bookstores must serve Muslims, landlords in white neighborhoods must rent to qualified black people and bakeries ran by Christians must serve gay people. If you want to discriminate against whoever you like then, don't open a business of any kind. Oh, in case you want to get uppity that it's your God-given right to earn money, remember that money is a government created and owned entity in every country in the world.

Oh, and your "inalienable rights" only go so far as they don't violate someone else's rights. You're not special and you don't get more rights than other people. People can't stop you from being an asshole, but, they have the right to punish you for it.

Comment Re:Ob. xkcd (Score 1) 978

I agree that it is not applied evenly. It's an imperfect process that has to get adjusted by an imperfect body, congress (that's an understatement of epic proportions), so sadly, it's going to be imperfect. The problem is protecting people who get discriminated against is always a moving target as society always finds new groups of people to discriminate against. And though, there can be a base justification for the stereotypes, everyone deserves to be judged on their own merits, not the merits of people who look or sound like them or on criteria that has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Comment Re:Ob. xkcd (Score 4, Insightful) 978

Part of free speech is NOT being free from the consequences of said speech. If you act like an asshole (such as a business discriminating against gays, in this instance), you can be subject to public denouncement, boycotts and civil litigation from the affected parties and it can lead to you being shut down as a business, as it happened in this case. Also, the federal government has, and some states expand upon, a list of protected classes of individuals that you may not discriminate against based on certain criteria. You don't get to refuse to service anyone, rent them a home, give a loan, etc. on the basis of someone's race, for example, as that has nothing to do with their ability to pay, perform a service or do a job. If you discriminate based on these criteria (they're easy to look up), you're breaking the law in addition to the above possible consequences. So. TL;DR: Yes, you can be an asshole to black people, gay people, etc. just be prepared to suffer the public consequences.

Comment Re:Depends on the system (Score 1) 167

You can but,

1) Virtual machines create their own variable
2) Variable for every different possible configurations of hardware (CPU, GPU, RAM, number of storage drives and type, ports, etc,)
3) Variable for every OS version
4) Variable for every OS configuration option (these can number in the millions per version)
5) Variable for every 3rd party software installation, not limited to virus scanners, disk management tools, 3rd party installers, active applications at time of install, etc.

Just how many different variant virtual environments do you want to try and configure to run? Just with the items I've listed, that's billions of variations. It just comes down to a question of how much effort in testing is worth the offset in later debugging after going live and there's no perfect answer to that.

Comment Re: Why even have elections? (Score 1) 437

I doubt seriously that companies are going to risk going back to the 60's or 70's policies and products - even if the EPA wasn't there to stop them.

"Hand of the market" libertarian fairytale bullshit! History has shown, again and again, that the majority of companies will take the path that earns them the most money in the short term; damn the consequences. The few that don't, if no action is taken against the ones that do, are eventually forced by investors to adopt the same disastrous policies to remain competitive. The EPA is one option to try and prevent this behavior by giving the good companies some equalizing leverage against the bad actors, when all goes well.

so I think that the pendulum is definitely swinging towards conservatism and protecting the environment regardless of the party in political power at the time.

People seem to forget that the EPA was created by that liberal commie, Richard Nixon. [/sarcasm] for the sarcasm impaired. People in power, regardless of political party, who aren't in the pocket of the big, industrial polluters know that there needs to be a force against companies that wish to destroy the environment we live in for profit.

But even for all the good that the EPA has done, you still have companies like VW scamming the system. So saying that government is the solution really doesn't work either.

So, you're suggesting that since the EPA doesn't work 100% of the time, that it should be thrown away? By that logic, I'm sure that you have had failures and did not succeed 100% of the time. Should we throw you away as well? Look, the EPA has had failures, I don't dispute that. But, given the fact that the people that they have to report to (congress) has a leadership that has a vested interest in making sure that they can't work, they're doing an ok job. It comes down to if they are doing more good than harm. Right now, overall, they still fall under doing more good.

Reducing the federal government's size and scope doesn't necessarily mean that the functions it does will all disappear. Some will be taken over by other departments if they need to exist at the federal level, and some will be taken over by the states (where the founders of the country intended them to be).

Umm... other federal agencies cannot suddenly extend their mandate without authorization from congress. And, congress is not going to extend another department to take over the EPA because they already have a department to do the job... the EPA. You really think that that states would have any chance against the money of the gross polluting industries? The Koch brothers and their allies, all heavily invested in gross polluting industries such as coal, power generation, paper, timber and other such industries, have pledged just shy of 1 billion dollars in support of candidates that, in addition to other things, sign off on supporting the complete elimination of the EPA. (To put that in perspective, Delaware's entire projected 2017 annual budget is 4.1 billion dollars.) Do you really think that they're spending 1 billion dollars because they think environmental regulations can really be ran better by states or industry? Hell no! They're funding it because, if they can ram dissolving the EPA through congress, they feel they can make significantly more than 1 billion dollars by selling our planet's habitable future for profit. And if our planet is not habitable for future generations... well, that's not their problem.

Your solution, to put it in a metaphor: A fox gets past the hen house guard dog once in awhile and kills a chicken. Your proposal is the same as the farmer shooting the dog for not doing his job and saying to the chickens: "Sorry, you're on your own." and walking away; hoping the problem sorts itself out.

Comment Re: Why even have elections? (Score 1) 437

Sadly, it can be worse. The level of corruption of Brazil's last two presidents makes Hillary Clinton look like a rank amatur selling favors on a street corner and Kim Jong-un of North Korea makes Donald Trump look like a wise and level-headed saint as hard as it is to believe. That said, I don't actually recommend voting for either one of them as there are better choices in the field, even if the media doesn't want to cover them.

Comment Re:Collateral murder (Score 2) 338

The point is to get any attention from the US media about US events that actually matter, you have to be a complete and total asshole about it or else they ignore you. Assange is just such an asshole (I don't dispute this fact.)

Assange was never accused of rape by the two women. They went to the police to track him down to take a STD test because a condom came off. Once it was realized who they were checking on, the police pressured them into filing a criminal charge of a type of secondary sexual battery charge (a type that doesn't exist in any other country; so no equivalent to match it to) of which the women have since withdrawn when they realized they were used by the police for political purposes. Note: Sweden did this due to US pressure which is a violation of Sweden's constitution. Misogynist? Maybe; and falls under asshole anyway so, it's not worth the debate even if you're wrong. He's not alt-right, not the racist version currently running rampant through Europe but, he's a serious libertarian though. His support of Ron Paul points to this as well. He doesn't trust governments in any form at the moment as even the "good" ones seem to be corrupt as hell at the moment. With the data he's published and the actions taken against him, do you blame him?

Comment Re:One word: competition (Score 3) 917

There's one word for why competition is not keeping prices low in the US: collusion. It was a practice that the US government used to clamp down heavily but, enforcement has waned significantly since the Reagan era (both Democratic and Republican presidents have been responsible). For example, there is no way that a wireless carrier can change all their plans and prices and a competitor change to matching ones within 24 hours without collusion between the two as the billing systems take a few weeks to a few months to prep plus marketing materials needs to be submitted to advertisers days or weeks in advance. So, it is impossible for both to change within 24 hours of each other unless they agreed upon the changes in advance. If it were a case of spying on their competitors then they would come out with one that is better, or at least appears better, than their competitor instead of the same.

Comment Re:Big mistake (Score 4, Interesting) 56

I know that Google has been working on and planning this "marriage" of OSes when they released Android and CromeOS. They said at the time that the hardware and apps just wasn't up to the marriage they envisioned. Apparently, they have decided that now is the time. Most likely, this hybrid OS will run stock Android apps and will also likely replace both of the current OSes in time. This has been Google's vision since the start of these projects. Now, we'll see if they pull it off. I hope they do for the simple reason that one OS from a company is usually better than two; especially when it comes to support.

Slashdot Top Deals

If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith. -- Albert Einstein