Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Personally I will wait (Score 2) 128

I've had AMD in the past, when they were good (pre Phenom days). Then I switched to Intel. It seems like AMD are finally getting serious again, that's good. Because with the rumors flying that Intel is soon going to be supporting Windows only on their chips, there is no fucking way I will continue to buy from them if this turns out to be true.

Price is only a secondary concern. It was important when you were buying a new rig every year. But since the pace of progress has slowed, I don't mind shelling out more for a CPU because I know it's going to last me a good 5+ years and then some. Now what I find important is retaining control over my machine.

Comment Re:Yes, but it won't happen any time soon (Score 1) 98

Streep is an exception (and good for her if she can still pull in that kind of money.) Most actors don't pull in anything like that amount of money, and even those that are able to pull in six digits or, occasionally, seven, digits per movie do so usually knowing they have a shelf life, and that Hollywood will discard them when they get into their 30s. At that point, many know they'll be difficult to hire in any other professions, as they just devoted much of their lives to a single profession, and have no skills outside of that, and have fame as an added handicap.

20 million, incidentally, is dirt cheap for a modern movie (to put it into perspective, the pilot episode of the 2000 TV series Dark Angel cost that much), and the right star can be the difference between a $60-250M movie (which is more the ballpark) either making a loss, or making an outrageous profit. The ticket price, which seems to have held steady at around $10 per adult for the last 20 years now, is what the market has determined is what people will pay, so that's not going to come down if studios were to cut actors salaries. So... why complain about this, specifically? If they're the ones making the movies profitable, and if the money's there, why not let them have a cut?

Comment Re:Good idea (Score 2) 114

It's been a while since I have seen it, but I seem to remember it was not in any way a good movie by itself, I remember it being really terrible, compared to anything.

I was fine with the Alien movies that came after personally, I just remember 3 was so bad I literally wished I had never seen it.

Comment Exactly Backwards (Score 1) 266

Uber is a taxi company, it made a name and got support by creating jobs and employing people.

That part is correct.

Their push to automatic cars destroys the very thing that made them popular to begin with.

Wow, that is so wrong. It enhances what Uber does in many ways:

1) It allows more cars to be at places where and when real humans do not want to drive.

2) Because there is less need to draw as many human drivers to a place and time to meet demand, surge pricing can be lower.

3) It means less employment of drivers but possibly never zero, it just shifts where humans might work. Also humans will need to be employed monitoring the fleet.

4) As more and more cars are self driving, why wouldn't you simply not buy a car and instead use the increasingly cheaper Uber car that can drop by your house on a schedule?

5) Uber is one of the leaders today in self driving car research, so it's not even like they would necessarily wait for other companies to produce viable self driving cars. They are deploying them today.

The conclusion I see is that critiques of Uber are really, really wrong and fueled by a raving ignorant mob of hate that has been trying to sink Uber for years. Didn't work then, will not work now.

Comment Yes, Netflix will (Score 2) 98

Hollywood has become far too much a churn factory. Producing the same content endlessly...

Netflix has really grabbed the reigns at producing a wide variety of content. Yes Netflix has Marvel stuff too, but even that is better than what Hollywood produces!

The other reason Netflix will dominate is they are not afraid to make content available worldwide regardless of what audience it was produced for. The Netflix show 3% was targeted at the Brazilian audience but I really enjoyed the story and actors. No studio would have produced something like that and showed it in the U.S., at best they would have done a crappy American focused remake that watered down the point dramatically.

Comment Re:Less than public transit? (Score 4, Insightful) 265

Uber's venture capitalists and investors are eventually going to get skittish.

Which is why there was such a rush to try and IPO it over the past few years. That way the founders and investors could get out with their cash and Wall St. (read - your 401(k)) would be left holding the bag. After all, the Fed is pumping so much printed money into the system something has to soak up all that extra cash. Nowadays it's IPO's. But god help us when the bottom drops out of the market NEXT time...

Comment Re: Why kill yourself? (Score 1) 121

The average upper ages of human past 100 should have increased in the past couple decades if that were true but it hasn't

Not sure why you would say that but that is not a all the case - we are not talking about natural changes leading to such a prolonged lifespan but instead drugs or procedures that literally roll back the biological clock. We'll not live past 100, but can can live up to 100 several times...

Comment Re:How many whites were attacked by blacks? (Score 0) 1029

What the fuck does that have to do with it?

A woman once hit me, you appear to think I now have carte blanch to rape every woman I see?

Black Lives Matter are a racist violent bunch of criminals that assault innocent people. I'd look down on anybody that said they supported those thugs.

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 1) 1029

1) The Founding Fathers, almost all of whom were British subjects, saw firsthand what happens when only the government has firearms. They can use those weapons to quell public outcry over anything, claiming the people were "rioting" or were "a threat to peace and order" because the people can't effectively fight back. If you read The Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison and Jay all say the same basic thing: citizens who have weapons are more fully able to defend themselves from the government.

That may sound odd to Europeans

It also sounds odd to the current U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed in D.C. vs Heller the right to bear arms for self-defense. A later court finding (People v. Aguilar) summarized the majority opinion:

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever "in-depth examination" of the second amendment's meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment "guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (id. at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense" (id. at 628); that "the home" is "where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" (id. at 628); and that, "above all other interests," the second amendment elevates "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home" (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635.

So at this point they've basically decided it's a self-defense thing. The idea that the Second Amendment is to facilitate armed insurrection to overthrow a tyrannical government (a.k.a. the so-called "Second Amendment solution") has no current legal basis. The dissenting opinion went with the "well-regulated militia" idea:

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

Here are the first six drafts of the Second Amendment and the final version:

  • The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
  • A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
  • A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
  • A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
  • A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
  • A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
  • A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If they had C-SPAN back then, we would have more insight into what motivated these careful rephrasings, comma deletions, etc. At least some are known to have been introduced by Senate scribes inadvertently modifying punctuation, and introducing subtle changes in meaning. (Thank God somebody removed that "religiously scrupulous" crap.) But the Second Amendment is just badly written. we're forced to read through the Federalist Papers and other contemporary writings to figure out what these guys were thinking when they wrote it.

Two things you need to keep in mind when you read all this stuff. First of all, these were being defined as restrictions on the federal government, and only the federal government. The courts affirmed this model during the first half of the 19th century. Northern and Southern states had very different appetites for democracy in general, for obvious reasons, so the Constitution followed an "If you like your authoritarianism, you can keep it" model. The federal government was not allowed to restrict speech in any way, but if your state wanted to violate those same individual liberties, go right ahead. In most Southern states, speaking ill of slavery was a hanging offense.

Second, we have to seriously reexamine this attitude we have toward the Constitution. The older it gets, the more revered it becomes, and at this point, most Americans think of it as an appendix to the Bible. People are seriously arguing that the Bill of Rights are ordained by God. Back when it was written, things were more casual. Everyone agreed their founding document sucked, then simply crumpled it up and wrote another one. No one was in a mood to do this a third time, so the Constitution has a nice section describing how to modify it. (And nowhere does it say "and if things don't work out, start shootin'.") There seems no reason to think that they intended the document to be unalterable by future generations centuries afterward- that would be absurd. But modifying the Constitution at this point is politically impossible and will remain so. We have worshipped the document so much that we no longer control it- which is exactly what its authors tried to prevent.

Comment Re: That will die down (Score 1) 1029

Only a racist cares about skin color, and you seem to care about the skin color of cabinet picks... just saying that by the definition of racist, you are one. You just barley managed to leave out the words "token" or "uncle tom", I could tell you were itching to say them.

Most people see beyond skin color and don't care what color someone is, just what they can do. I'm sorry you cannot join us as it's much nicer world to live in.

Comment Re:Obama is to blame (Score 3, Insightful) 1029

Murder an innocent man because you think he's middle-eastern? Clearly the fault of the VA,

It is because he couldn't get the treatment he needed. Without that he became unhinged.

I believe in personal responsibility, but I also believe that if peel cannot get the help they need society is partly to blame. You apparently feel no blame at all should fall on anyone but Trump, even though Trump didn't come into the picture until recently and the shooter has been falling for years. Yet you twist the truth to blame Trump for a tragedy much longer in the making - sick man, you are as sick as the shooter or heading that way. How long before you punch a Trump supporter because you think they are racist? How long before you yourself are gunning down those you are against?

Slashdot Top Deals

This restaurant was advertising breakfast any time. So I ordered french toast in the renaissance. - Steven Wright, comedian

Working...