Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
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:As it's been said... (Score 1) 621

There's no faux fairness here, I'm not trying to be fair, I am openly against the UK leaving the EU, because it appears to me that leaving has no merits whatsoever. I would like to hear any you can think of.

I'm not a Brit, nor a European, so I'm far from an expert. However, one need not be an expert on the specifics to understand the principle that having to obey the edicts of a commission composed of members of which you are only one, the edicts of which you do not have veto power over, is a de facto ceding of sovereignty, to at least a degree.

If you either do not value sovereignty in principle, or you think that nothing bad enough happened yet to justify retaking sovereignty, that would be a good clarification for you to make.

You know that it's always easier to maintain the status quo, and after all the controversy and hand-wringing since the referendum, you know a second one would favor remaining.

True. The mistake has been realized, a taste of the consequences has been had, and the UK's public would like to undo this mistake. You'd prefer to bind them to it against their will, I presume.

Nice try. More leftist propaganda and spin. "You'd hold them hostage against their will, you fascist!" you say after a completely legitimate referendum was held, after years of campaigning for both sides. Now that the media has gone into full-on, we-never-thought-this-would-actually-happen panic mode, and succeeded in scaring people into thinking that the sky is falling--with the helpful scolding of even the UK's allies, Obama even threatening Britain if they follow through!--now you want another vote! "Now they realized their mistake!" you say. Pathetic. Had the referendum been to stay, and the opposition were calling for another vote, you'd be crying foul as loudly as anyone. Hypocrite.

And if you're really a patriotic Brit, have a little faith in your fellow Brits

I am not, and those Brits just demonstrated horrendous decision-making skills, so my faith in them is low right now.

If the British 60 years ago had that attitude, they'd be speaking German right now.

For the good of Europe, Britain needs to return to a position of leadership and strength, and for that it needs real sovereignty.

Ah so this is the imperialist nostalgia I've heard so much about, first time I've seen it myself. Britain was only ever a superpower thanks to colonialism. Unless you think you can give that a second try, you'll have to accept that Britain is a relatively small country with no notable abundance of natural resources and as such it will never be a superpower comparable to the US, China, Russia, or arguably the EU you just left.

No, it's nothing to do with imperialism or colonialism or being bigger or badder or more powerful than other nations--it's to do with surviving the threats facing Europe today, and the role of leadership the UK played in WWII and the Cold War. If nothing else, the UK needs to be a voice of reason, an example of sanity, and a bastion of Western society and culture (which, though far from perfect, is what has enabled the progress that has been made in the past few millennia), because Europe and the West is currently under siege from barbarians who would return us to a Stone Age society, as well as under renewed threat from Russia (the president of which has stated that "we are in a new cold war").

I've asked this to other Leave supporters: is there something special about the EU's trade and travel agreements that causes them to strip the UK of its sovereignty, and if not, will the UK have to sever all others as well? Will you have to refrain from forming any new ones?

This appears to me another example of selective omission, minimizing, dismissal, and strawmanning. For the sake of argument, leave out trade and travel agreements--what about all the other aspects of sovereignty?

And for the good of its own citizens, it needs to control its borders and immigration--or would you have more foreign Muslims running sex slave enclaves where even your own police will not venture

Still trying to make Cameron choke on his porridge?

What is this? Seriously, what is this? Do you deny that Muslim sex slave rings were operating for years, preying upon young girls? And that UK police covered up these crimes for fear of being accused of racism? And that there are Muslim enclaves within the UK into which the police will not venture? Your response is, "Oh yeah, well, David Cameron called some Fox News guy an idiot"? Are those claims true or false?

or more cleaver-wielding maniacs chopping up people in the streets and boasting red-handed to the cameras?

Murderous madmen who chop people up in the streets and boast to the cameras come in all flavors, the last one I can think of killed Jo Cox and was 100% homegrown. And now your new leaders are struggling to find a way to have their cake and eat it too - regardless of whether the UK is in the EU or not, putting any immigration restrictions in place has roughly the same effect on trade with the EU.

Oh, well, as long as foreign-born Muslim jihadists aren't the only ones doing it, then I guess it's not a problem, per se; if jihadists aren't butchering British soldiers on the street, some other bad guys will be butchering some other people, so it's all the same in the end, right? And being able to sell stuff to other countries is equally important as not being invaded by legions of madmen who want to kill everyone because of who you are, right? I mean, yeah, you could keep some of those guys out of the country, and maybe prevent some innocent people from dying in mass killing sprees, but then you might not have exactly the same trade agreements with some other countries in Europe, and that just wouldn't do.

Given your words thus far, I have doubts about your sincerity. But in case you are seriously interested in discussing this, I would be interested to hear your opinion on this video:

As an outsider, his points seem simple and sensible, and the facts he cites should be verifiable. I would be interested to hear simple, sensible, and factual rebuttals to his points. If he is correct, it seems like leaving the EU is the sensible choice.

Comment Re:As it's been said... (Score 1) 621

Of course it's an outright lie from the leave camp that we didn't have sovereignty. We always had it and could always choose to not implement any of the EU rules we wanted (as the exit vote has proven).

I'm no expert, but according to what I saw, the UK alone could not veto EU rules and laws, but only as a whole with the rest of the EU member states by convincing them to agree. In practice, this had only happened successfully one time in the entire history of the UK's EU membership, and in challenging EU rulings in court, the UK had a success rate of only 30%--all of which, of course, could hardly be considered sovereignty. Can you explain this to me?

Comment Re:For reference (Score 1) 621

I don't understand. In the EU, the UK has to go to the EU and beg and plead for concessions, giving up things to get what it wants.

Out of the EU, the UK can do what it wants, when it wants, without begging for permission to administer its own affairs in the way it best sees fit.

And regarding that "slightly better deal," other people say it was not better, that it actually conceded some of the few advantages the UK still had.

Sheesh, can you imagine the same nation that endured the Battle of Britain wanting to live under the thumb of the rest of Europe? What has become of this once-courageous, once-independent nation that it--some people in it--now cowers in fear at the thought of self-determination?

Comment Re:As it's been said... (Score 1) 621

Ofcourse, you could claim that the 51% in this particular case would not be fucked over, but that argument would essentially boil down to "because I know better than them", and I'm assuming we can all see the folly of those ways.

No, that's exactly the problem: leftists cannot see that folly, blinded by their own hubris to even the most egregious horrors of even recent history. To them, the ends always justify the means, and their ends are always correct.

Comment Re:As it's been said... (Score 1) 621

Typical leftist rhetoric. Your opponents are "objectively wrong," they "hate," an "informed populace" could not make such a decision, and anyone who did must therefore be throwing an "overpowering tantrum of xenophobia," "due to extreme ignorance."

Your faux fairness is transparent. You're the one throwing a tantrum that you didn't get your way. You know that it's always easier to maintain the status quo, and after all the controversy and hand-wringing since the referendum, you know a second one would favor remaining. You'll say anything to try to disqualify and discredit the referendum, from ageism to vague accusations of which your side couldn't possibly also be guilty of, according to you and anyone who's "informed."


And if you're really a patriotic Brit, have a little faith in your fellow Brits, the same nation that bravely endured the Battle of Britain and defeated the Nazis less than a century ago. How cowardly to think that you're doomed without the rest of Europe telling you what to do. For the good of Europe, Britain needs to return to a position of leadership and strength, and for that it needs real sovereignty. And for the good of its own citizens, it needs to control its borders and immigration--or would you have more foreign Muslims running sex slave enclaves where even your own police will not venture, or more cleaver-wielding maniacs chopping up people in the streets and boasting red-handed to the cameras?

Or maybe you're just a pro-EU troll, mindlessly imitating the shrill cries of leftists everywhere as a member of the collective reached to pull its plug and wake from its slumber.

Submission + - SPAM: Court ruling equates password sharing to hacking

schwit1 writes: A new federal court ruling could make sharing your passwords for subscription services — covering everything from Netflix to HBO GO — a federal crime punishable by prison time, according to a judge who opposed the decision.

The ruling, issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week, pertained to a trade-secrets case and found that certain instances of sharing passwords are prosecutable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) – legislation predominantly concerned with hacking.

However, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing in his dissent, argued that the case was not about hacking but password sharing. Consequently, he argued, the ruling jeopardizes password sharing for the general public.

“[The ruling] loses sight of the anti-hacking purpose of the CFAA, and despite our warning, threatens to criminalize all sorts of innocuous conduct engaged in daily by ordinary citizens,” he wrote.

“The majority does not provide, nor do I see, a workable line which separates the consensual password sharing in this case from the consensual password sharing of millions of legitimate account holders, which may also be contrary to the policies of system owners. There simply is no limiting principle in the majority’s world of lawful and unlawful password sharing,” he argued.

Link to Original Source

Comment Re:Beta was not forced on me (Score 1) 14

People seem to forget about all the bugs that have to be fixed in every new software project.

Sure, but if you want to achieve the functionality of this site (minus the current beta) why start with code that ran this 7 years ago? If you decided you wanted to build your own distribution of Linux you wouldn't start with a kernel and software sources from 7 years ago, would you?

No, but neither would I try to recreate the kernel from scratch, nor would I try to turn the BeOS kernel into Linux. If all the software since 2007 disappeared, and I wanted Linux back, I'd most certainly start with Linux from 2007. Wouldn't you?

Starting over is always tempting, because it sounds like fun, but it's also very expensive, and often wasteful.

I don't think any reasonable person would start on a slashdot alternative with the hopes of making money on it.

It's not about money, it's about time and effort. Volunteer time and effort is costly and shouldn't be wasted.

And come on, a replacing Slashdot with a wiki?

I don't see how the slashcode from 2007 is a better option.

You don't? Slashcode from 2007 basically does what Slashdot does now--at least, what it did back then, which hasn't fundamentally changed. I was happy with Slashdot in 2007. What does Slashdot do now that it didn't do then?

And why would I want to use a wiki instead? Have you looked at how discussions work on wikis? Ugh!

If that's what you think, what are you waiting for? :)

Because I don't have the disposable resources to build a slashdot replacement in any way, shape, or form.

Neither do I. But wikis are wikis; you just use them, right? Why don't we just start a wiki on some free wiki host and start posting the kind of stories Slashdot posts, and let people edit the page and add comments?

Comment Re: "Not Reproduclibe" (Score 1) 618

You might be right about all you said. But I still don't see how requiring the government to disclose to the People the information it uses to justify its regulations could possibly be a bad thing, except for people who want to enact unwise, unfair, damaging regulations that benefit special interests. How do you justify secrecy? This isn't a matter of national security.

Comment Re: "Not Reproduclibe" (Score 1) 618

>What about the arguments by environmental and climate change lobbyists saying, "But the poles will melt and we'll all drown! We have to stop everything NOW!"?

They are absolutely correct - to the best of our understanding it may already be too late to maintain the basic climate we've enjoyed for the last several thousand years, and *every* *single* day we avoid fixing the problem the more drastic the permanent changes are going to be, and the more traumatic and expensive the transition is going to be.

This is alarmism and panic and Chicken Little at its finest. You've convinced yourself that you understand something as enormous and complex as the earth's climate and ecosystems over an enormous time scale so well that you are certain you know what's going to happen far into the future. Human arrogance doesn't get much bigger than this. The earth is amazingly adaptable and flexible, and so are its ecosystems and inhabitants. No doubt, the weather will be the weather, i.e. always changing. That doesn't mean we're all going to die--I mean, we are all going to die, because that's what humans do, but you know what I mean. :p

>What about the observational science that shows that CO2 levels lag behind temperature change?
Right. This time is something different - the rising CO2 levels are the forcing factor this time, rather than just being a part of the positive feedback system. That actually tells us that once things get past a certain point the CO2 levels will probably quickly snowball out of control as the "usual" natural feedback takes over. If you want the run down I can give you some of the basics, but it's getting late right now.

Do you hear yourself? "Yeah, yeah, but that's not how it's working this time. This time we're all DOOMED! It's about to SNOWBALL OUT OF CONTROL! It's over folks!" I can't help but wonder what your motives are.

>What about the observational science that shows that the earth was both warmer and colder, running in cycles, long before humans showed up?

It should terrify you.

No, it really shouldn't. For one thing, if the climate were to go nuts, we'd all be dead long before that happened. For another, we're far, far more likely to die of a million other things than climate change. For another--and this is probably more important than any other point--the earth and its systems are enormous. The CO2 that humans emit is only a tiny fraction of what the oceans emit. But we--well, some of us--think that we have such an enormous impact on the global climate. We are tiny and pathetic compared to the earth and all of its many parts. You really give humans far too much credit. But the bottom line is that the numbers tell the true story: humans have a miniscule, if any, effect on the climate.

Because it means that there's nothing "normal" about the climate that human civilization developed in, it's just a nice self-reinforcing "comfy spot" the climate settled into for a while, until the next traumatic event shakes things up again. And there's pretty much always a traumatic event that changes things up - cosmic ray burst, asteroid impact, *something* throws the ecosystem severely out of balance and then everything goes to hell for a few thousand years while most of the species on the planet go extinct, until eventually a new stable ecosystem emerges. This time it appears the traumatic event is to be us, most recently by pumping massive quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere millions of years ahead of the normal geologic carbon-cycle schedule.

Your logic is simply flawed. It's like saying, "He's been in a slump for 8 games, so he's due for a hit any at-bat now." And it's really just silly that you would compare a catastrophic, unpredictable event like a large asteroid impact to human beings' putting out a small fraction of the total CO2 emitted for the past, what, 150 years? Dude, you yourself said that there's no such thing as a "normal" climate, that it's always changing and something major is always messing it up every once in a while. So what makes you think we can have any impact on it? Obviously, the climate is going to do what it's going to do, and we're basically along for the ride.

And what exactly do you think will happen to geopolitics if we suddenly lower the population the planet can support from the 5-10 billion of present estimates, to only a few hundred million? Even if it takes a few centuries things will get ugly - the sort of ugly that promises that even in the best-case scenario your great-great-grandkids are likely to be a lot worse off than you are, assuming you're one of the lucky few who's gene-line survives the cull.

More panic based on more speculation, exaggeration, and flawed thinking. Even if the climate did become less hospitable to humanity, it wouldn't suddenly only be able to sustain a few hundred million. The earth and its systems are enormous. They change slowly. And the sun and the oceans totally dwarf everything humans do.

And on top of all that, you seem to think humanity is going to stop advancing, and that we won't be able to make any changes to adapt to a changing climate. Well, you'd better hope you're wrong about that, because if the climate does radically change someday, it won't be sudden, and it won't be within our power to control, so we will have to adapt--just like humanity has been doing for thousands of years.

Chill out, dude. (Haha, I said "chill out" to someone worried about global warming.)

Comment Re: "Not Reproduclibe" (Score 1) 618

...Are you so dense? The point is that the AC was either lying or lacks critical thinking skills. Either he knows those media sources are extremely biased, or he's so gullible he fell for it. This is simply more of liberal media's smear campaign against conservatives. What's sad is that so many people fall for it.

What's your point?

Slashdot Top Deals

Mathemeticians stand on each other's shoulders while computer scientists stand on each other's toes. -- Richard Hamming