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:Those who something, something (Score 1) 167

It worked rather well to radicalize the jews after WW2. Muslims are already radicalized so that is not a real danger anymore.

Most muslims are rather shy and passive in my estimation. Not so much the radicalized ones. Regardless, I prefer my criminals to actually be criminals, and I'd never want all Christians registered because some kook blew up an abortion clinic, or that there are people killing their children using the command spare the rod and spoil the child.

Comment Re:Most admired (Score 1) 57

Is that the same as "least despised"?

Tragedy of the commons. Especially bad in this internet age.

Anyone who is in a position of power or innovation gets a raftload of hate. Just human nature for some people to be angry at success. Or be angry at popularity. Or wealth. Take any positive thing, and there will be some people who freak out because it is positive.

I do some things, and it is pretty surprising the amount of crap one gets just for doing some things. Takes a lot of effort and time, and most of my people just love it.

Where the tragedy of the commons effect comes in is that the person who can't stand positives or success comes in has the same access to me as all the people who are positive, or when they do have criticisms, frame them in a way that I can use. Hard to improve things by dying in a fire or any of the other cute shit I get on occasion.

Oddly enough, the bashing tends to come in public, and kudos in private, which can make a competent person look silly bad.

And some people have trouble handling it. Some people quit and go back to being a lurker in life. Some people have their access tightly controlled to insulate them. Me? I absorb them all, and sometimes play the troll like a fish, or ignore them, depending on what appears to be what they want the least. Its like absorbing their energy.

But back to Musk, he'll reap a lot of hate, but only because he's doing stuff. New stuff. Cool stuff in my opinion. And he's largely succeeding.

And we've heard all of the whining of the folks that can't stand him because of his success, be it that electric cars will never be practical, or taking every accident as proof that they are (fill in the pejorative here) or that his rockets are subsidized, or that Hyperloop will never work because Musk, or that the Solar City roof sucks for some reason.

So as we adjust to the electronic tragedy of the commons, we have to realize that the slashdotter who believes that we'll be on oil energy forever and thinks Musk is a commie or something, is not remotely the equivalent of Musk and others who actually do things.

Comment Re:Which media company would refuse to stir up shi (Score 1) 167

Sure, it's an appalling idea, but can we wait until it's an actual plan before pouring out the vitriol?

So, we should wait until the actual contracting stage to express indignation? The fact the other companies didn't unanimously and immediately shit-can this idea says more bad things about America than burning a flag could ever accomplish.

The very appeal to "keep calm" and to "let's see how this unfolds first" is pretty creepy as well.

Comment Re:Which media company would refuse to stir up shi (Score 1) 167

based on hypotheticals? Sure, it's an appalling idea, but can we wait until it's an actual plan before pouring out the vitriol?

Huh? NO! If there is anything really bothersome about the Pepe's taking over, it is this order to sit back and watch them at work . So after we get the Muslim registry, what will you demand next? We just just give it a try it a try and see how it works?

It's obvious to anyone with a brain cell that Il Pepe and followers are built on hate and anger. While useful in small amounts, when it is the core principle, it always kills itself.

Make no mistake, I believe that religion is responsible for most of mankind's ills, and that radical Islam is a poster child for evil, and I have no problem at all with terminating them with extreme prejudice. I prefer to administer criminal justice to actual criminals however. But when a group of people is branded as terrorists without evidence, well google Nazi Jewish ID cards. Perhaps this will be part of the model? I have no desire to implement such a program, and don't need to wait to condemn it. http://www.tennesseeholocaustc...

Comment Re:Those who something, something (Score 1) 167

I think I speak for anyone who's read a history book when I say this is an absolutely awful idea. I know Twitter gets a lot of stick but well done them. If you're in favour of this then you're a fascist or you're an idiot. There's literally no middle ground. This is how it starts.

Well, maybe Muslims should be required to sew a crescent on all of their clothing, so we can identify them in public. That method of ID has been tested and used already.

Oh...... wait.....

Comment Re:Oh boy, the media is not bias (Score 1) 91

Ha, you must be a time-traveler from the pre-SJW leftist era. These days the apeshit coming from the SJW left makes the old A.M. radio batshit coming from the right look positively sane.

It's a pretty bizarro world where liberals are now the ones screaming for banning free speech and bullying their opponents into silence. They've even managed to one-up conservatives on their conspiracy theories. I remember laughing after Obama's election when pawn shops were reporting a run on gun-buying from gun nuts convinced that Obama was coming for their guns. The I read a story recently about how there has been a run on birth control from crazy lefties convinced that Donald trump is coming for their birth control. Lol, same crazy, different day.

Comment Re:mdsolar (Score 1) 294

I feel much the same way as you. In theory, I'm pro-nuclear power. But when dealing with real world engineering issues, not to mention the incredibly decline in cognitive abilities in product engineering these days, not so much.

The problem is as you suggest. Altogether too many people seem to place a political mindset to the issue. Somehow, if you say something negative about nuclear, they bring out the long sharp knives and somehow know for a fact that you are a left wing tree hugger of some other pejorative.

Rule number one is that ideology has not once negated a scientific truth. The same with economics or the free market, or regulations or any other ephemeral human construct. Americans were not able to come up with a religious explanation that invalidated evolution, even when they use the law to ensure that it isn't taught, nor have they been able to cause the sex drive of teenagers to disappear. The old Soviet Union was not able to use it's ideology approved version of genetics - Lysenkoism - to actually ever work, even if old Joe thought it was the shitz. Many more examples, but I'm writing about physics, not politics.

Even in here, we have at least one person who won't even take the word of the people who investigated Fukushima and found incredibly indictful problems. His faith is 100 percent unshakable, I suspect he would gobble down a pound of Corium to prove how safe it is. I do not argue much with deluded people as soon as they prove what they are.

But although it is certainly possible to design a safe reactor, all of those artificial human constructs, along with a possibly inexhaustible supply of hubris, make it very difficult. Because physics gives not a teeny little tiny fuck what my opinion is, or anyone else's opinion is. It is what it is. I can't believe I used that phrase, but this might be the only time it was 100 precent appropriate)

Comment Re:Should be illegal (Score 1) 51

Pricing their video service over cellular implies that the cost of the cellular hop is zero, and that the expense of transmitting the video to the viewer is all in the Internet link. Since their own video service is hosted locally, there is no Internet bandwidth consumed, and thus the price should be zero (which was what Netflix offered these guys for free on their landline ISP service and they turned it down). For a market economy to function properly, the minimum pricing has to reflect the expense incurred by the seller.

I can understand zero rating as a temporary promotional measure (e.g. streamed video doesn't count against your cap for the first 6 months if you use our service). But making it the standard price is equivalent to dumping to try to kill off competition. Especially if they're using revenue from other sources to subsidize this service, like say, extra money they're collecting from Netflix in contravention of Net Neutrality.

You got that right. It also implies that there is a load of bandwidth available to use. So, wait a sec.. If there's a load to use, why do you place a high value on it because of its limitation? Then, why do you encourage people to use it for something that limits it further and then say there isn't a a problem with limitation? Stupid circle.

Comment Re:They're lying. (Score 1) 51

"AT&T said exempting services like DirecTV Now from data caps saves customers money. "

No, it doesn't. Wireless network costs are shifted onto consumers who don't buy their streaming services. If all the costs of streaming bandwidth are included in the price of the streaming service, then reduce the cost of that service and let the consumers pay for the bandwidth directly, just like customers who use competitive streaming services.

My reply to them: "Yeah.. Why don't you reduce my data cap and save me, as a customer, money."

You're right, that makes NO sense.

Comment It's deeper than ethics (Score 1) 51

Ethically/morally/etc it's one thing. It gets a bit trickier. When you offer a service like that, it also pushes more traffic onto the network, which affects other users of said network.

Personally, I think it's interesting that the FCC is calling out a company early (though this would have to be fought outside the FCC in the end). If I'm paying for bandwidth that isn't throttled and don't abuse it, it seems a bit lopsided that my bandwidth gets throttled by the heavy usage of others that were encouraged to use the LTE network for a service that eats a lot (especially the more users are using). Basically, it's throttling without throttling.

In terms of what I think is a better idea, that's not something I can technically address without impeding on the morals of others. From a technical standpoint, it's dumb, and I don't want to be pigeonholed by dumb. I might be going overboard, but if there will be lots of video eating up available short-bursts fast bandwidth, I don't want to be paying for it. Lower my cost or fix the technical dilemma. Just an opinion, and I know that doesn't matter. :)

Comment Re:The names are...... (Score 1) 97

The summary has the names (or it does now, anyway) but not the numbers or the symbols, which would have been nice to include. Would've been good to include some etymology as well.

Yeah - not certain if that was dumassium poisoning making me stupid or what. My most credible defense is that I was something like the third person to post on the story, and it might have been fixed. Or caffeine deprivation. Or a dumass moment.

Slashdot Top Deals

Disc space -- the final frontier!