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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Farmer Uses Homemade Cannon to Fight Off Developers 14

If you try to evict Chinese farmer Yang Youde you better be ready for a lot of attitude and his homemade cannon. Land developers have attempted to confiscate his farm twice, only to be met with homemade rocket blasts. From the article: "'I shot only over their heads to frighten them,' the China Daily quoted him saying of his attacks on demolition workers sent to move him off his land. 'I didn't want to cause any injuries.' The rockets can travel over 100 meters, and exploded with a deafening bang, the official paper added. It did not say if anyone had been injured."

Comment Are people missing the point? (Score 1) 241

Well in this case it's a 70min bus ride each direction to a digital school. This school issues every student a laptop instead of the old standard heavy text books. No problem with some students not having laptops. These high school students spend more then 2 hours each day on the bus. Some live on ranches and most likely have a long list of chores to do at home as well, I know I did when I lived on a ranch.

I agree that not all the kids are going to be doing something productive with the internet, the artical even talks about that, but the ones not being productive are not bothering the ones that are. Think of it as a library setting where the kids are waiting to be picked up, this one just happens to be rolling.

For those that think the cost is too much. Consider this is only being used on an extremely long route, one bus and that I highly doubt they are paying for the service over the summer. And for those that say being rowdy on the bus is part of growing up. It was just that rowdiness that caused an accident when I was on a bus ages ago. The driver looked up into the mirror to see a fight breaking out and hit a parked car. The bus is not the place to be rowdy.

Comment I'm not flying anymore. (Score 1) 183

I'm not flying anymore and it's not because I'm scared. It's because I'm tired of the hassle.

For the record I love to fly, I've flown since I was a small child. I used to fly with a pocket knife then. Later I added a multitool to my person and flew with that. Back before 9/11 those were allowed. Notice that not one of the hijackers used a pocket knife or a multitool, yet they are banned. I'm waiting for the day that I'm not allowed to take my cane. I think on that day I'll use it to whack the screeners upside their heads.

The whole reason I'm not going to fly is I feel it's the only way for us to regain control of the situation. Once people stop flying because of the hassle and restrictions then the airlines will start screaming for the reduction in the screening.

I say let's go back to pre 9/11 requirements with the exception of secured cockpits. Then and only then will I start flying again. Until that time, I'll drive, take the train or even the bus. Yeah I might end up sitting next to someone that hasn't showered in days but at least that will be more pleasant then dealing with asinine security restrictions designed to do nothing but appease the paranoid masses.

Comment Free thinking on Apple? Not really (Score 0) 945

I've asked a few people I know who use a Mac and it's not that the Apple one was a better choice for them, its that they think Apple products are the only ones who can do anything. I've had some tell me that Macs are more exprensive because they use the fastest parts with RAM having the fastest speed rating and you can't get RAM as fast or faster on anything but a Mac, and how Mac CPU's are the fastest with the biggest cache and nothing like these could ever been seen for at least 6 months later on a PC. Had another Mac user watch a homemade video on YouTube.com and pointed out that because it was using a camera and had to cut frames it could only have been done on a Mac since they have some video editing software on them and it was just impossible to do that from Windows. Other tell me the impossible like Macs aren't ever out-dated even after 10 years, no program bugs (was hard to tell the one musician friend of mine when his entire Mac wiped itself of a years worth of work was because of a Snow Leopard bug http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2142272 and no buying another couple hundred dollar attachment isnt a solution to a software glitch), there are no malware on a Mac like trojan (http://www.intego.com/news/ism0901.asp) that just impossible because its a Mac. And they refuse to see any other option, hell one screamed at me when I compared prices and hardware from Alienware and Apple and how the prices were cheaper on the Alienware and they parts were better then the Mac's. Amazing the power of a good marketing campaign. On a side note though, does anyone know if PC from I'm a Mac I'm a PC have any legal meaning or is it just a nod of the hat to those old Our Product vs Brand X? where Brand X has no legal weight and can be made to look bad on purpose? Because while I know they are suggesting and implying Windows, but since they aren't exactly saying Windows then in the eyes of the law I'm pretty sure it's not considered to be Windows, and the rare time they mention that Windows has X problem I've noticed that the Mac is very quiet and never says Macs don't suffer those problems too since that would be false advertising.

Comment Re:$204 ... $20,400 -- wouldn't matter. (Score 1) 54

The thing is, the companies that provide that insurance want to make a profit. That means that they charge less to those companies that takes steps to minimize their risk. That means that it costs the company to be vulnerable, even if nobody hacks their system. SO, if a company does not mitigate its risk of a data breach and its competitor does, it is at a competitive disadvantage.

That's an oversimplification. Most insurance companies release guidelines that you have to comply with to get certain rates. For example, your auto insurance may be lower because you have a car alarm on it. That doesn't mean the car alarm works, or was from a reputable vendor, just that something on that car now meets the definition of "car alarm". Lots of checklists like this exist in the business world -- they add the appearance of security, but do nothing to actually create security. For example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act contains lots of rules. One company I worked for decided to encrypt every desktop harddrive to meet one of the requirements of preventing data theft. Of course, that didn't prevent the nightly dumps of the pharmacy's customer records from being put in a world-readable/writable, anonymously, and remotely accessible share for a few hours at a go -- because that's how the backup program worked. You just had to know when and where to connect on the network. Did I mention this company's entire corporate intranet was accessible from kiosks and each store has wifi?

Checklists don't improve security, they just give legal a way to say "we made a good faith effort." I stand by my original assertion -- Insurance is just a cost-shifting tactic that allows bad business practices to manifest because there's no real pressure to use good business practices.

Comment mod parent +6 (Score 1, Insightful) 156

nothing makes my blood boil more than these condescending western attitudes that nonwestern places have a "special" culture that means they can't appreciate or don't deserve basic things like participatory democracy

as if you cross the ural mountains or the mediterranean or the rio grande and *poof*, magic!: those people over there have a "special" thousands of years of history and a deep intricate culture that apparently teaches us... somehow... drum roll please... that its ok for autocracies to commit horrible violations of basic human rights

wtf?!

human rights triumph culture. culture does not triumph human rights. nevermind the fucking braindead obvious observation that government != culture. is german culture the third reich? is russian culture the soviet union?

furthermore, its called HUMAN rights, not WESTERN rights. please, some of you morons out there: this attitude about "special" cultures needing our respect... translating in your ignorant mind as asshole governments needing to be excused of outrageous crimes... this attitude is really nothing more than soft racism

Comment Re:The world's most expensive letter (Score 1) 335

No, that number makes perfect sense:
$1000 writing the letter
$600/hr for 40 hours (gotta stretch it). You know, research, hit youtube to watch other dancing toddlers for "research"; stumble across "sittin on da toilet" and watch because it is stupid, but funny and you boss is not looking; decide that it is time to hit up /. since boss is not working the rest of the day; etc for 40 hours
And then $375,000 for douche bag tax on Universial for being a bunch of dirty douches.

Yeah, all the numbers work out perfect.

If these big companies think it is cool to charge the &@%^# out of the small time people, especially with this situation on YouTube, i.e. the people that made the video, not YouTube, than the lawyers are going to do it right back at them. I think it is stupid, but hey, I am hoping they get it, since at least somebody has figured out a way to smack these big companies in the face for overcharging people. If iTunes charges 0.99 a song, I will pay you 0.99 if you find my pirated music. It is not my problem you have a huge legal department. Don't charge me when you decided to hire 75 lawyers to write a letter, that was your dumb choice, not mine.

Comment Re:Going Nowhere (Score 1) 175

Out of curiosity, is that US total debt figure including or not including the portion owed to Social Security?

That figure is the external debt. Which does not include the "debt" to the Social Security Administration. I have read that the unfunded liability of the SSA (you know, the sort of thing that corporations get slammed for in court regularly) is on the order of $100 trillion.

See, there was a wonderful bait-and-switch pulled on the middle and working classes over the last 25 years or so that went like this:
1. Notice that Social Security will eventually be broke unless we do something about it. A commission led by Alan Greenspan is formed to figure out what to do about it.
2. The commission recommends raising FICA taxes to build up a surplus in the so-called Social Security Trust Fund, to reduce the risk of having to cut SS benefits. Congress follows the recommendations of the commission.

Which had already happened before that, and will happen again.

>3. Fast forward about a decade, and lo and behold government is running a surplus if you include the extra SS revenue (but a deficit if you don't). So when George W Bush gets into office, he says "We'll send everyone a $300 check as their portion of the surplus, and also use the surplus to justify a nice hefty tax cut for the top tax brackets."

But, but...it was the Clinton Administration that claimed that we had a surplus. Bush taking them at their word was disingenuous at best, but otherwise he'd have had to call them liars (and the lads on the left would have crucified him). Plus, of course, opposing his proposed income tax cut on the grounds that the "surplus" that Clinton had achieved wasn't REALLY a surplus would have made the Democrats and the Media look bad....

4. And lastly, since the SS Trust Fund "doesn't exist", the same people then argued that either benefits had to be cut, or the SS system privatized, because government couldn't afford it anymore.

Actually, they suggested privatizing it since the stock market was appreciating in value far faster than your "investment" in Social Security. They fell for the "but prices will NEVER go down" fallacy that infected so many people during that period.

Note: about five years ago, in discussing housing in Florida, I heard three well-educated, technically literate people assert that "housing prices could never go down". When I realized I was the only dissenter from that PoV, I went home, wrote my mortgage company a really big check, and have been the sole owner of my home since.

The effect of this is that over the last 20 years overall tax burden is shifted from the progressive income taxes to the regressive FICA taxes.

Yep, pretty much. And that process will continue. It can't help it, really. SSA is structured such that it MUST be paid from SS taxes. As the fraction of our population of SS age increases (as it has pretty much every year since it was instituted), the amount of SS taxes must increase.

And as the amount of SS taxes increase, the fraction of our budget that is the SSA will increase. Note that the SSA is the largest single budget item today. And while you can cut the Defense Department, you can't cut SSA (paid for by SS taxes) and Medicare (paid for by Medicare taxes) (first and third largest items in the budget right now).

In order to actually balance the current budget, we'd have to eliminate the Defense Department, and reduce all other discretionary spending by ~70%.

Or, alternately, double income taxes across the board.

Frequently, the same folks who argue that the SS Trust Fund doesn't exist and therefor SS shouldn't exist also include the T-Bills owned by Social Security in the "Total US debt" figure as a way to argue for cuts to other programs.

It doesn't exist. Simple thought experiment to demonstrate its existence or non-existence:
Assume it exists. When the SSA finally reaches the point that it must start redeeming those T-Bills, figure out what will happen (hint: the government will raise SS taxes and/or increase the external debt to match the decrease in the "debt" to the SSA.
Assume it doesn't exist. When the SSA finally reaches the point where it must start redeeming those T-Bills, figure out what will happen (hint: see above hint).

If the result is the same assuming the SS Trust Fund exists as if it doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 945

Or it illustrates the fact that people who gravitate to the Mac are interested in a tool they can use and, say, Linux users are interested in a toy (and I mean that in a good way- I love me my toys) they can fiddle with.

These "toys" run quite a lot of enterprises, maybe you should state in what context we are talking. Workstations? Laptops? Servers? etc.

Comment Been there. (Score 2, Insightful) 422

I lost all the balance function in my ears more than 5 years ago. At that time only one center in the Phoenix area had the testing equipment. It took me 3 months to get in for testing and the testing ended up costing me close to $500. Oh and that was out of pocket as the testing center wasn't covered on my insurance plan. I would love to see something as inexpensive as this as a first round of testing. Would have saved me months of stress over not knowing what the hell was going on.

Slashdot Top Deals

Harrison's Postulate: For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.

Working...