Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:I've got 15 mod points ... (Score 1) 196

While your post was insightful, I would argue the following:

1.) A United States Citizen declaring war on the United States. Where's that goddam manifesto? The last time that happened was the Civil War when the Confederacy committed treason.

As the Confederate states voted to secede from the union, they could not be judged as technically citizens at that time, therefore not technically treasonous. Of course, if you follow then Lincolnian school of thought, the vote was illegal and therefore null-and-void. I guess it all boils down to your opinion of self sovereignty of the states prior to the Civil War.

Shelby Foote claimed that prior to the war, the terminology used to reference the US was the following: "The United States ARE" whereas after the war it changed to "The United States IS". I think this is a telling observation of the reasoning of the time.

Comment Re:Yet another ignorant troll (Score 1) 196

You're absolutely correct. Damn those tyrants in California for believing their vote should count the same as the vote of any other American. They need to learn that in America the rights don't belong to humans, and we're not all equal before the law. Rights belong to abstract constructs, like corporations or states or, if you're a republican, bank accounts.

When I hear this kind of stuff, I cringe at the educational system and what it has wrought. If you harbor anger and disagreement with the Constitution as written, perhaps you should propose an amendment to alter or abolish the Electoral College. Then you can lobby the states to ratify your amendment. Good luck on that part though, because the remaining 48 states aren't that eager to turn presidential selection power over to California and New York.

Comment Re:Tipping (Score 1) 140

he waiter will earn less than the flirtatious waitress, have you any doubts about that?

Since I nearly always dine with an intimate guest, flirting would subtract quite a bit from the standard tip.

One time my (now ex) wife and I stopped at a Cracker Barrel off the highway while on a trip. The waitress gave ME the best service I ever had. She was friendly, attentive and prompt. My wife couldn't even order. The waitress wouldn't even look at her or acknowledge she existed. I had to order everything she got. I thought it was hilarious, but my wife was furious. She gave me a warning in no uncertain terms that I was forbidden to leave so much as a penny tip. She failed to see the humor when I explained a tip was deserved because of how wonderful my service was.

Looking back on things, I have to wonder if the waitress didn't secretly know my wife and was getting back at her for something she had done.

Comment Re:The problem here is the prick who fired him (Score 1) 477

Thing is, literal Naziism is a political position too. That's people who literally want to kill me and people like me. If someone goes expressing those views publicly (if it's privately, I won't know), then you can bet your ass I won't be working with them. At what point is the business owner required to protect such a person when (say) half of his staff won't go near the guy, because the guy wants to kill them or at least clearly considers them subhuman.

Lighten up Francis.

It was a law to deny certain rights to gay people, you know, by force of law. He wasn't merely expressing opinions, he was donating money to a cause to actively harm them.

Now here's the thing, the people working at the organisation he was heading thought that was unacceptable behaviour. It's entirely their right, and in fact their duty[*] in some ways to say they won't work at an organisation headed by that guy. The organisation now has a choice: keep the head or keep many of its workers.

So if you worked for me and I found out that you were advocating the firing of someone because of his political donation choices and I subsequently fired you for trying to harm him financially, would you be fine with that? After all you are working to harm someone based on political affiliation.

Comment Re:Not so silly. (Score 1) 477

The Gorean philosophy that Garfield follows isn't BDSM. It advocates real slaves, the kind without safewords. It also advocates disgusting, misogynistic garbage that makes women feel unwelcome in the Drupal community and is against the community's values. I'm really shocked that people are lining up to defend this scumbag. I get the idea that it's being misconstrued as some sort of "bedroom privacy" issue when it is nothing of the sort.

Someone is channeling Andrea Dworkin.

Comment Re: Not so silly. (Score 4, Insightful) 477

Yes. Ask the autist slave how they feel. Lol.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

C.S. Lewis

Comment Re:Conflict of interest (Score 5, Interesting) 258

The escrow idea really is very good. It's not supposed to be about money, after all. It's supposed to be about safety.

The lie that "it's only about safety" was disproven in Ohio. When the governor lost the first court battle with banning cameras, he proposed reducing state funding to cities who used cameras by the amount assessed in fines by the cameras. The immediate howling by the cities who obviously only cared about money was hilarious.

But... But... But.. It's about safety, not money... You get to keep your safe streets, but you can't profit from it. Bastards. It was obvious to everyone that it was always about the money.

Comment Re: bit rot (Score 1) 475

Multiple copies may be one solution, but it introduces another problem that doesn't have an elegant solution... you need a tool that can verify the integrity of your data (across the multiple copies). How do you choose which one is "correct" when you migrate and copy to a new system? In addition, how are you sure that any given copy is actually complete? What if you want to permanently delete a file from your archive?

This is how I mitigate bit rot my home photos. My personal policy is that all changes must be made against a master folder on one designated computer. I have a script that recursively runs an md5, sha1, and sha512 checksum/hash on all the files in that master folder. I run a verify with all three hashes prior to making any changes to the master folder. Once changes are made, I recreate new hashes and rsync to multiple locations on my home network including on one portable drive I keep offsite. Each copy is independently tested with the hashes to verify it is correct. If at any time, any of the hashes fail (they have not yet) on the master folder, I (would) recover the failed file from one of the other copies after verifying it is correct with the hashes. I have considered adding some type of versioning scheme, but I only add, never delete. It is possible that a bitflip could occur between deleting the old hashes and create the new, but since I have never had an error trapped despite making multiple copies and potential drive wear, I think this is a remote possibility.

Back in the old days before it got so big, I would tar and gpg the entire archive and put a copy to Dropbox too.

Comment Re:Celeron? (Score 1) 157

No the OP, but I'll spell it out for you:

I can install Linux AND update it in less than a half hour. This includes installing all my desktop apps.

I have NEVER had Linux run 100% disk usage for 35 minutes after booting by something called "CompatTelRunner.exe"

The last brand new Windows 10 laptop I set up (three weeks ago) out of the box after creating the new account ran for hours and hours sucking all bandwidth available in a low bandwidth home for Windows Updates. I could not pause or stop this insanity so I could download and install Chrome and an Antivirus of choice. I had to leave it with instructions of "call me when it finishes the updates and I'll come back and finish setting it up for you."

I have worked on many Windows 7 machines which prior to Summer 2016 would run 100% CPU on one core for hours (sometimes days if far enough behind) to get the current updates.

My Linux installs do not take 5 minutes to boot because they lack things like Adobe Updater Startup Utility, Acro Tray, Java Platform Updater, Send to OneNote, and all the various speedlauncher autostarts to mask the true amount of time it takes a program to really startup when clicked.

I have been given systems to fix one small problem only to wonder how in Hell the owner ever used such a slug of a machine. I would have junked something that ran like that. It's not the Windows Kernel. It's all the shit that comes along with it. Those equivalent applications may run with similar performance on a clean system, but very few Windows machines are lean and clean. And God help you if Windows decides it needs updates then-and-there and whatever you want be damned.

Comment Re:Why only new drivers? (Score 1) 180

There is a reason why younger drivers have massive insurance premiums (insurance here is specific to a driver and their car - you cant simply jump in any car and be insured) - an 18 year old driver driving a 1.6 litre car could easily be quoted more than a thousand pounds for insurance. Thats because they have more risk attached to them

Please explain. Are you saying the a 1.6L engine is considered a risky engine for a 18 year old or that 1,000 pounds is the low end for a 18 year old driver's insurance or that your 18 year old drivers just suck that bad? Normally aspirated, non-hybrid cars are never equipped with an engine that small here.

My teen son was paying less than that for high risk insurance after some difficulties a couple years ago.

Comment Re:It all makes sense (Score 1) 180

This isn't abstract you stupid jerk. People are dying because other people are using mobile phones rather than concentrating on driving.

I hate to break this to you, but dying is your ultimate fate as well. People die all the time because other people drive drowsy. Or make mistakes by pressing the accelerator instead of the brake. Or just not seeing that motorcycle coming down the road. Where are the laws against that?

You have failed to demonstrate exactly why this law is necessary when there are already existing "distracted driving" laws on the books. I have clearly stated that my argument is that this law is crafted solely to allow lazy law enforcement an easy way to fail to do their jobs properly while appearing to be "solving the problem" of distracted driving. They should be watching for ALL the cases I mentioned above and in my last post, not just stroking out when they see a cellphone in a car like you apparently do.

Comment Re:It all makes sense (Score 1) 180

It's perfectly simple. Holding a mobile phone whilst driving reduces your control , and makes you more dangerous to other road users. People are killed because of assholes that do that every day. Therefore there are laws against it. You demented libertarian fucknut.

Just the act of "holding a mobile phone whilst driving reduces your control?" So does picking your nose, changing the radio station, rolling down the windows, turning on the heat, getting out your wallet at the toll booth, setting the cruise control, and so on. So fucking what? Picking up a rectangle of plastic, glass and metals doesn't magically make it instantly evil. And exactly how does checking your phone while stopped waiting in a line/queue reduce your control of the vehicle? (i.e. Can't have people looking at their phones at traffic lights or while waiting in lines) You dictatorial authoritarian Nazi. You see, I can throw ad hominems too. The point still stands. The behavior you want to punish is driving recklessly, not looking at a cell phone.

One morning as I drove to work on the freeway, I saw an 18 wheel semi-truck driver with a magazine draped over the steering wheel, turning pages as I passed him. Maybe you should lobby your representatives to make a special law against that too. I drove past a couple once and the guy was getting a BJ on the road. Are you going to jump up and down frothing at the mouth until there is a specific law against that too?

Comment Re:It all makes sense (Score 1) 180

I am pretty sure that Franklin didn't mean to impose anarchy and Might Makes Right rules.

I think Franklin would be appalled at the way we allow our government regulate and micromanage every aspect of our lives. We create whole new classes of crimes and ever increase penalties for existing crimes. We live in a world where the law has grown to such a degree that no human being could ever know all the rules and laws they are subject to. Just carrying cash makes you a suspect subject to forfeiture and the bank is required by law to report you for withdrawing or depositing "too much cash." We live in a world where where the average man unknowingly commits three felonies a day (https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229) We are a long way away from anarchy. And we have been living under "Might Makes Right" rules for a long time. You just haven't been paying attention.

This law against cell phone usage is just another example of overreach simply to create new laws just to make it easier for law enforcement. The problem really isn't cell phone usage, it's "distracted driving" or reckless operation. Yet we have so many people ready to jump on the bandwagon, clapping, because "They are finally doing something." There was no reason drivers could not be penalized before, but it's so much easier to punish someone who is holding a phone rather than someone who is not paying attention to the road. This law is the equivalent of penalizing someone for sleeping late rather than for speeding while driving to work because they were late.

Law enforcement is LAZY and citizens are way too eager to hand over more power to make their jobs easier without thinking about the consequences. New generations are then acclimated to the way it always has been without thinking about why do we allow this? People get accustomed to telling others how to behave for anything they do not agree with, regardless of the logic involved or the actual harm to others. (i.e. Can't have people looking at their phones at traffic lights or while waiting in lines) It nurtures the belief in new generations that anything that is not expressly allowed should be denied, instead of the reverse.

And yes, I realize this was a British law, but there are some states with similar laws on the books, so the principle still applies. I also fully expect to be modded down by those who won't read my post or just don't get it because they "saw someone texting on the road just this morning."

Slashdot Top Deals

The price one pays for pursuing any profession, or calling, is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side. -- James Baldwin

Working...