Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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 False equivalency (Score 1) 318

I believe an important distinction is that Gitmo was not closed after 8 years of promises and the President leaving office without it getting done.

Obama was actually trying to close Gitmo, because it's a travesty against liberty and justice. This was a constitutionally sound, well thought out, and highly principled stance.

Trump was not actually trying to give us good healthcare, because either he has no idea what he's doing, or he is specifically trying to benefit monied interests rather than actually see that good healthcare is made broadly available to the citizens. This is the stance of (take your pick) an idiot or an evil person.

Yes, both were stymied by congress. But:

Obama's Gitmo effort is fairly described as "good intent, stymied by congress, AKA failure."

Trump's ACHA is effort fairly described as "bad intent, stymied by congress, AKA failure."

People claiming doomsday for President Trump are foolish.

Based on the ACHA failure, certainly. It was just terrible legislation that made him look like an idiot. Being an idiot isn't cause for impeachment. Otherwise we'd have been rid of Bush II early on. :/

However, based on Trump's continuing spewage of falsehoods, his campaign's complicity with Russian manipulation of the election, based on his utilizing the presidency to take financial advantage... I wouldn't be too sure that us saying "President Pence", and fairly soon, is all that unlikely.

Trump is obviously incompetent at the job. Between that, and his continual coloring outside the ethical and legal lines, and that of the campaign that resulted in his election, his future as president is by no means certain to extend a full four years.

Comment Law mandated technology (Score 2) 235

I love how political types think that we just need to mandate using less power, oh and this time at ever increasing rates because that worked for a few decades for transistors.

Ironically, computers are one of the least regulated industries on the planet.

If you want to see what mandated goals do, check out your health insurance bill, the government has been regulating that industry for 40 years.

Comment Re:Already solved! (Score 1) 74

Isn't this what free apps like HiYa and TrueCaller do?

With apps like that, you're still getting the robocalls, you just don't see them. The carrier still has to carry them. They take up bandwidth on the trunks and frequency allocation on the cell towers. The ones that originate as VOIP sessions from some boiler room in Bangalore clog up valuable spectrum on transatlantic cables. The earlier in the process they can be blocked, the better.

Comment Laumerlicious stuff (Score 1) 381

Chris, know what else would make a superb movie from Laumer? The Long Twilight. That book is awesome fun.

It has superhumans, aliens and alien artifacts, AI constructs, alien empires, broadcast power, several quite different levels of plotting, alternate history, near-future tech, military aspects of various ages, a love story, revenge, reconciliation... and it's all reasonably doable, movie-wise.

Any Laumer fan who hasn't read it... I highly recommend it.

Comment Cockpit access (Score 1) 248

First, those only stop someone from commandeering the aircraft in the circumstances that we saw in 2001 and do not necessarily address destroying an aircraft

No, they don't. And you can't, completely. You can shoot one down, and nothing at all prevents that. And the TSA doesn't do anything worth doing at all. But the problem that arose in 2001 was using the aircraft as a ballistic weapon with intelligent guidance. Everything that came about post 9/11 was in response to that. We'd had various aircraft destroyed by bombs, and no one felt we had to go anywhere near the lengths we did after 9/11. So what I was saying was that in response to 9/11, we should have done what I suggested, and that would have adequately addressed the actual issues that 9/11 brought to the table.

One of the concerns about the cockpit door is a rapid depressurization of passenger cabin might force that the door be opened.

Fine. If this is a real problem (unlikely, but possible), start building new aircraft without cockpit doors, and replacing the entire bulkhead in older aircraft. Have an external hatch access the cockpit; another the cabin. The pilots and engineer(s) don't need to be in the cabin, and the passengers and stews don't need to be in the cockpit.

Then toss the (un)PATRIOT(ic) act in the sewer where it belongs.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computer Science is the only discipline in which we view adding a new wing to a building as being maintenance -- Jim Horning

Working...