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


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

Comment Re: we were just heading back into an ice age. (Score 1) 163

My point wasn't about efficacy - frankly I don't believe it would be very effective, mass murder rarely is. Such a process would also require enormous resources, which creates a breeding ground for corruption. In practical terms - it would not be an effective way to achieve the goal and would open the door to many genuine atrocities.

My point was to put into perspective the point where libertarians ought to stop being libertarians - because of what becomes justified (justified != a good idea) when they do. People have a right to freedom of religion - but when you start believing you have the right to blow me up in the name of your deity I get the right to shoot you first. People have a right to freedom of speech - but when you are advocating that people should kills gays - we bloody well will lock you up, even in the USA. On the other side - I am (a kind of) socialist in my thinking, but at the point where socialists advocate violent revolutions I no longer support them. Those have historically caused massive hardship and slaughter of innocents, installed dictators and consistently failed to produce socialist outcomes anyway - the most successful socialist states achieved it by peaceful and democratic processes.
No matter how good your idea is, no matter how nobel your goals may seem to be - all ideas have limits, and that limit is where other people can make a reasonable argument that your pursuit of this idea puts their welbeing at risk.

Even if libertarians claim they would offer workable alternatives to government prevention (and so far none has - all I've heard is 'recourse' which is the old Murray Rothbard argument and doesn't offer anything resembling a workable solution but they like to push that one because it *sounds* like the are solving the problem without actually stopping anybody from killing you) a sane version would declare that all laws and regulations on matters of public safety will stay intact until AFTER their alternative systems are in place, tested and working.
You don't create a vaccuum in which slaughter can happen while going through the arduous process of building something else, even if you think that something is better (by whatever measure you decide it is better). You build the alternative BEFORE you dismantle the current one.

Because a bad system for public safety is still better than none at all, even if it's briefly - and legal changes are never 'briefly'.

I absolutely do agree that the best way to deal with the particular threat posed by libertarians is not through killing them in self defence. Hell even if somebody attacks you and wants to kill you right now my belief is that you shouldn't kill him in self defence if you have any other options. If you can escape - then you shouldn't kill. If you can disable without death then you should take that option.
Killing, even in self defence, is a last resort. I wasn't advocating we kill libertarians - I was merely putting into perspective the risk they pose. If you believe in libertarianism, fine, we will never agree but we can live alongside each other. On issues of social liberalism we could even be allies even if our economics will always be as opponents.
There's nothing wrong with that. But you ought to stop being a libertarians BEFORE the point where it risks the health and safety of other people. Just as you ought to stop being a christian BEFORE the point where you bash gays.

Comment Re:So are we... (Score 1) 111

No, no, you misunderstand. The purpose is to get them off of Earth, where they can't do any more damage. To that end, I would propose that the first mission include the entire United States Senate. As much as I'd like to start with the House, they won't fit, but we can divide them up across subsequent missions.....

Comment Re:How do IoT manufacturers... (Score 2) 68

The sad part is that it was too late before the devices were even built. This is really no different than any other zombie botnet.

What is needed, IMO, is a standardized system for being able to report problems upstream—an ICMP response that says, in effect, "Suppress all traffic from x.x.x.x to y.y.y.y for five minutes" that propagates upstream. Ideally, it should use a three-step handshake to prevent forged block requests from being viable, where the recipient of that message waits until it sees a packet directed to y.y.y.y, (to avoid amplification attacks), then sends a packet that says, "confirm block id xxxx" and it responds "yes xxxx" after which it drops the traffic. If it gets no response, it should try three pings (with exponential backoff), and if they fail, it should assume that the server is saturated and it should block the traffic as requested. If they succeed and a subsequent confirmation fails, it should assume that the server doesn't actually support blocking requests, and that the blocking request was spoofed. If the response is "no xxxx", then the blocking request was spoofed, and the packet passes through with only that small extra bit of latency, and the blocking request is discarded.

If such a scheme were in place, then each botnet member joining in a DDoS attack would get blocked by their closest router, or at a bare minimum, by the router at their ISP, and would basically be unable to do any real harm.

Comment Where no cable has gone before (Score 1) 130

McCoy: Good God, man!

Kirk: I don't care how you do it, Bones, just fix the damned video.

McCoy: I'm a doctor, not a damned cable monkey!

Spock: Fascinating. This router has no jacks.

Chekov: It's a couragous router. Inwented in Russia.

Uhura: This is not a federation signal. I can't make anything out of it, sir.

Sulu: Faraday shields up. It's good to be Takei, bitches.

Comment Re: we were just heading back into an ice age. (Score 1) 163

Oh, and all this is academic. Lets assume your insanity is true and climate change to this degree is normal and the historical record actually supports that claim. It's bullshit but lets pretend it was real.

See we have other records - archeological, anthropological etc. etc and the thing is - they show that every major climate shift humanity has experienced was a major calamity and we very nearly didn't survive any of them as a species. Every single one came close to an extinction level event for us. Every single one caused massive displacement, starvation and wars.

And we are MORE vulnerable now than we were when those happened. They happened when displacement was a much smaller problem. If you went somewhere else, there was a good chance you could find somewhere that somebody else wasn't already living and prepared to fight to keep you out off... there are no such places anymore. There is nowhere for the displaced to flee but to your country. America can't figure out how to deal with a few hundred thousand refugees from wars they caused - how the fuck are you going to deal when there's a few hundred million or more fleeing starvation and hunger and drought ? Sure it may make some places green which aren't now. Those places won't be producing much food anytime soon though - most of them are areas where the soil is not conducive to farming. No matter how much warmer and wetter you make it - Siberia will not have productive farmland for centuries. The soil is just to dead. And meantime - the places that were good farmland won't be anymore.
Oh and the plagues... you are having a political crisis trying to deal with Zika right now. Malaria kills more people every year than any other cause. Even a small increase in the global average *massive* increases the areas where these diseases can spread. Many economists have calculated that Africa's economic woes can be *entirely* attributed to Malaria. Sure we have wars and corruption but so does everywhere else. We alone have malaria to deal with. With all those productive people dying young. All those kids missing school because mommy is sick, husbands and family missing work to take care of her and all that money wasted on funerals in a classic broken window fallacy.
Imagine America with Africa's economy - all your wealth destroyed, all your resources spent just trying to avoid complete collapse - and for the same reason.

That's the thing you think is not a major problem. Just because nature can be a bitch doesn't mean it's not idiotic to horrible things to ourselves. The lesson to learn from natural climate shifts is not that climate shifts is just something that happens and so what... the lesson is that it has come pretty close to eradicating our species several times, and never failed to cause enormous hardship and uncountable deaths and it will be *worse* next time.
And, much like the zombie appocalypse, in a major climate change scenario - the single greatest threat is not the weather, it's the other humans. Who will happilly kill you for the water you have.

Comment Re: we were just heading back into an ice age. (Score 1) 163

>the amount of industrialization 150 years ago was trivial compared to today comparable to volcanic activity
And you were doing so well. You almost sounded like what you were saying wasn't complete bullshit... and then you come up with this such and complete and utter fabrication that it's impossible to believe somebody could actually still seriously claim this.
The good news is - we don't have to guess, we have actual numbers. See the American Geophysical Union - who are pretty much the premier experts on volcanoes - actually answered the question. The average annual total CO2 output from volcanoes is 0.025% of what is put out by coal power plants. Just power plants, and just coal. That's not counting cars, or oil plants, or gas plants or any of the other emission generating fossil fuel industries. Just power plants alone put out 4000 times as much CO2 every year as all the volcanoes in the world.
Oh and volcanic climate change, more often than not, is cooling - not heating. Volcanoes are more likely to cover the atmosphere in sun-blocking ash and sulphur, which makes it colder. It was a volcano, after all, that gave Europe it's infamous 19th century year without a summer. Volcanic heating from CO2 is actually extremely rare. It's just not a factor - which is why we believe that most previous major shifts in climate had to do with solar activity or changes in the eath's orbit. Things which are not happening to any significant degree at the moment.

>So then - the rise in temperatures 150 years ago was not a result of man-made global warming,
Firstly, the industrial revolution started in the 18th century, not in the 19th, and was well along by 150 years ago - so your claim about the level of industrialization is another flagrant lie easily disputed by anybody who passed high school history class. Now high school history classes tend to be less than stellar in accuracy, being more obsessed with propaganda than actual history but they do tend to get the damn *dates* right.
Besides which - nobody claims there was a significant rise 150 years ago because there wasn't. What there was, was the beginning of the rise that is significant TODAY. It started then, small, and has been accelerating ever since.

>do you think that a libertarian property owner would have no problem (and no recourse in a libertarian society)
Recourse isn't good enough. Recourse cannot happen until after somebody did something bad - perhaps fatal. The ONLY reason to have recourse at all, since there is neither justice nor any other good served by vengeance, is as a deterrent. Prevention is what we actually need.
It's not GOOD enough to punish the ones who did it for what harm they cause - you need to make it so damn scary that they don't try. Civl lawsuits don't work for that, we have them now - and they are not working (that was what Murray Rothbard proposed and it's pretty much the only well developed libertarian theory on the subject).
And what's worse is that the court system as a whole - and indeed any recourse system - is fatally flawed as a way of dealing with this and property rights even moreso. For several reasons:
1) Poluting your OWN land is STILL evil - because polution doesn't obey land borders
2) Recourse need to exist for people who don't own land as well - in fact, currently, they are the ones most in need of protection, most current toxic polution events happen on land without clear single-person ownership under western law.
3) It's extremely hard to prove, how *do* I prove this poison came from YOUR factory and not your competitors ? What about air polution ? A recent study showed that a sigificant portion of the smog in LA originates from factories in china. Polution not only doesn't obey land borders - it doesn't even obey national borders. All polution is global polution. That brings up matters of jurisdiction, huge costs and difficulty proving the guilty party and then proving that the harm you suffered was from that polution. It's a nightmare and, generally, only rich people get anything. A system that only protects the rich may be a libertarian wet dream (even if they always pretend it isn't really what they want) but the rest of us see it as batshit insane and, rightfully, consider it a threat to our lives and safety which we are justified to defend ourselves against.

I think shooting libertarians in the street should be legal on the basis that what they are doing, even if it's only politically and in who they vote for, the policies they advocate, is a legitimate and immediate threat to your life and the lives of your loved ones. And there is nothing extreme about that view - it's the only logical conclusion and the ONLY mitigating factor is that most of them are not doing so out of actual mallice but out of stupidity. A conclusion which logically follows from the fact that most of them are also endangering their own lives.

Comment Re:What selfish bastards (Score 2) 166

There's millions of kids in this world who need adopting. How about they try that instead of passing on their hereditary disorders and polluting the gene pool even further.

I think you kind of missed the point, which is that this lets them pass on most of their genes without passing on their hereditary disorder....

Comment Re:Seriously...music off YouTube...? (Score 1) 270

Well, when I was 16-24yrs, I was into and enjoyed high fidelity stereo....my friends all did as well.

Er, not unless your parents and friends' parents were very well off, or all of them were in the military and bought their equipment duty-free in Asia you didn't. Before digital, in America a high fidelity stereo (let alone quadraphonic system) would cost your a couple grand.

I used to have an audiophile-quality system I bought stationed in Thailand, but it was stolen in a burglary. I have a pair of JBLs now, three way with twelve inch woofers. I miss my old stereo.

But I rip from YouTube occasionally, and rip from KSHE every Sunday night when they play six full albums. With Windows all it takes is Audacity and a setting in mmsys.cpl to capture a signal sent to your sound card, you don't need those goofs' web site.

I make CDs from KSHE's albums for the car, and they sound as good as factory CDs -- in the car. Their difference in quality in the house with the JBLs is marginal. It's a LOT better sound than a cassette recorded at home.

If you're in St. Louis (I'm not) you can plug your digital FM radio's "out" jacks into your computer's input jacks and you actually will have CD quality music.

The labels are fighting a losing cause.

Comment Re: How about Government poisoning your water? (Score 1) 163

I can vote government out and you bet your ass the republicans will be losing Michigan over Flint. I cannot vote out PG&E.

Thats the difference. History has almost no examples at all of elected governments killing many citizens.
In the case of Flint the fuckup was enforced by the state government against the demands of the local government who actually wanted to stop it. Interestingly the state government was the party of small government. See when you make government too small to stop corporations from killing you, you also made it too small to stop itself. You need a government of competing interests to act as watchdogs over each other. That unfortunately requires it to be large enough to have competing interests. Such a larger government is more efficient than a smaller one too because government departments actually have competition.

The failure of the EPA to prevent Flint is a direct result of congressional cuts to the EPA budget. Making government smaller kills the watchdogs that restrain it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Happiness is a hard disk.