Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:The nature of the Trump-fans is pretty obvious (Score 1) 277

Fascism is only opportunistically anti-capitalist, which you would know if you studied its history in various places as well as over time. It flirted with socialism particularly in the early 20th century because that was seen by many as the wave of the future, but when it managed to gain power it purged, sidelines, or even outright murdered the socialists in its ranks.

Your view is very parochial in any case; social democracies like Sweden are much less like the fascist regimes of the early 20th Century than, say, Russia is under the United Russia party, which (surprise) is made up of former socialists who are now crony capitalists.

Comment Re:The nature of the Trump-fans is pretty obvious (Score 1) 277

Fascism and socialism are entirely different in their nature. A fascist can a capitalist in the morning and a socialist in the afternoon as long as it suits his purpose.

It's the polar opposite of being doctrinaire; the doctrinaire extremist fits the occasion to the theory; the fascist fits the theory to the occasion.

Comment Re:The nature of the Trump-fans is pretty obvious (Score 1) 277

Independent here, not a "Trump fan".

They are authoritarian followers, that fight anybody that disagrees with them with violence. They are irrational and dangerous. They are unable to find a middle-ground with others.

You're describing Hillary's followers here.


Because authoritarians follow charismatic leaders...

Just saying repeating what someone else says doesn't make it true, no matter where you claim your loyalties lie (or in this case loyalties you disclaim).

Comment Re:Weird definition (Score 1) 239

Well, if you've ever been an expert at something, you no doubt use certain words in ways that confuse non-experts, because you have need of more precision than they do.

I have no idea what the technical epidemiological standard is for being something- "free", but it can't be the utter absence of that something (which is the non-specialist's definition) because you can't prove a negative. So there must be some criteria short of absence.

Comment Re:Fear is a good thing for business (Score 1) 312

It's been tried before, on an impressive scale. Humans haven't figured out absolutely how to keep rats, cockroaches and bedbugs out of their domiciles, much less most persistent and clever pest of all: other humans.

It'd probably be worthwhile for the rich to consider what being rich actually means. It's not having a lot of gold. Gold through the ages has only been useful as specie because (a) it's pretty and (b) it didn't have much practical use other than being pretty.

What being rich means is having the ability to command the cooperation and compliance of other human beings.

So a bunker is only good for a couple of weeks or at most months of disorder. It's a place to go while someone on the outside is struggling to re-establish the status quo ante. So it makes no sense to build one unless you also invest in the stability of the status quo, because if those people trying to preserve society fail you're actually in a worse situation than other survivors when you come out of your bunker. The vast majority of your money will become only scare-quotes "money" if the legal framework in which debts and ownership exist ceases to function.

Comment It's the marginal hedonic value of money, folks. (Score 3, Informative) 312

Scenario: You discover to your surprise that you can have your fill of every pleasure money can buy, and then you notice you've still got a mountain of that stuff lying around.

What to do?

(1) Pursue power. This never gets old, because there's other guys with mountains of money doing the same thing. No amount of ever enough, because it's relative power that brings satisfaction.

(2) Serve humanity. The ability to amass money on this scale is a function of the scale of society, and that means that society's problems scale proportionately. The material resources you command could have solved all humanity's problems -- five thousand years ago. Today they're just a drop in a bucket, and that's a challenge.

(3) Build yourself a lavish Armageddon bunker.

(4) Any combination of the above.

Comment Re:Well... isn't it government property? (Score 1) 289

Fact is 96% of the world population are NOT US citizens

Yup... and?

and do not wish to be controlled by US interests.

Limiting the topic to just DNS management... can you explain in what way that 96% of the world population is unhappy with the benevolent dictatorship the US has had over the internet for all of this time?

Comment I'd like to hear a coherent argument (Score 1, Interesting) 289

That our authority over DNS is legally US government property in any sense the framers would have agreed upon, even stretching that concept of property to include intangible property.

Even if you can argue that DNS is American government property, it's pretty useless property. Since it is largely administered in a decentralized fashion, if the rest of the world wants it can set up its own DNS system and have people in their country point to their preferred root servers.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.