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


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Why is RAID 1 not a backup? (Score 1) 354

Lets see, your desktop PC gets a bit out of whack and suddenly the whole file system in borked. The OP says he is using Intel fake raid on windows. Other common things, your windows box gets a virus and starts encrypting everything sure snapshots (if the malware can not touch them) will save you from this. In general bitrot is a thing modern drives have CRC's etc but not realy suficient, things like ZFS, BTRFS, Gluster etc etc can do bitrot detection far about a single sector. Things like snapraid can do it for arbitrary sets of drives.

In any event you would want at least one copy thats offline preferably with physical distance.

Comment Re:Laissez Faire Capitalist Here... (Score 2) 204

Not internet per say but last mile data as a utility. You get to your ISP your cable tv etc etc etc via them. It's realy not that hard all passive optics fully in the level of what the muni's are good at dealing with basic infrastructure. CWDM keeps them out of bitrates macsec keeps them from peeking at the data. Mind you I dont mind the muni offering there own internet frankly ipv6 makes it pretty easy to allow access to muni resource like police fire schools libraries and the like even other people in your town.

Comment Re:Soooo (Score 1) 146

Wow, once again, you COMPLETELY FAIL TO GET THE POINT. I don't know if you are TRYING to be obtuse or if it just comes naturally.

I don't recall ever stating that the police should be disbanded.

When I say "safe for murderers and rapists," are you REALLY so dumb that you don't realize? Police generally come when (if) called, and they take time to get there. We have police, and over 11,000 homicides in 2014. Police CANNOT prevent homicide. They show up AFTER the murder and try to catch the criminal. If somebody tries to kill you, and you happen to have a cell phone on you, do you think that you could stay alive the 5 to 10 minutes for the police to arrive? Maybe, maybe not. Try your luck!

Criminals can run from the police. However, criminals ARE afraid of armed victims.

I'd also like to find out your source for determining that shoot-outs are somehow safer for a woman

Where is your proof that it isn't? Seriously, running away and calling the cops is always your FIRST option, but it should never be your ONLY option. What if you can't run away? What if the woman is at home on the 2nd story and can't get past the bad guy on the stairs? The woman is MUCH better off locking the door and aiming the gun at the door. Try to tell me otherwise and make yourself look like a fool.

If a woman goes up against a man in a purely physical confrontation, the woman is at a disadvantage. The average woman will be smaller and weaker. The average man will be larger, stronger, and quite possibly have a background in sports and other physical activity. There are corner cases (God help the man that tries to attack Ronda Rousey), but, in general, what I have said is true. However, if the woman is armed, she stands a MUCH BETTER chance against those that would try to hurt her. It only takes about four to six pounds of pressure to pull a trigger, and, statistically speaking, woman actually make better shots than guys. Women are among the best sharp-shooters out there.

Like I said, about two miles from my house was a case where a good GIRL with a gun stopped a would-be mass murderer.

Here is a case where a woman had a restraining order against her ex. She had applied for a gun permit, but was still waiting. However, her ex killed her while she was still waiting... Gun control killed her. Here chances would have been MUCH better if she was armed...

Studies have shows ... MILLION TIMES A YEAR
Well for starters, some sources would be good.

OK. Granted. Given the quality of your thinking so far, I am not surprised that you can't use Google. Let me help you. Here is one great link. Yes, it is Wikipedia, but they have links to the various studies, so you can read them for yourself. This is from the article :

Estimates over the number of defensive gun uses vary wildly, depending on the study's definition of a defensive gun use, survey design, population, criteria, time-period studied, and other factors. Low-end estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year, while high end estimates reach of 4.7 million incidents per year. Discussion over the number and nature of DGU and the implications to gun control policy came to a head in the late 1990s.[2][3]

So, yeah, like I said, lots of these studies are biased one way or another. Throw out the lowest and highest scores and average the rest. However, even the ones AGAINST guns still have "estimates are in the range of 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year." Get rid of guns, and get rid of those tens of thousands of cases of using them defensively. "Using" can be just showing that you are armed and scaring the perpetrator off -- it does not have to involve firing shots. Guns in the hands of an honest person scare criminals.

requires a gun as opposed to less lethal options like calling the damned cops

Bullets travel at least 800 feet per second (545 MPH) and will only have to travel 2 to 20 feet or so. Cops travel at most 65 MPH, and may have to travel 5 miles. You do the math. If somebody could harm you in 30 seconds, you are willing to wait five to ten minutes for help to arrive? Plus, even if you can 911, you have to talk to the operator for at least 15 seconds before they dispatch an officer, and the closest one might be on another call.

Of course, if you have the opportunity, you should call the police too. But explain to me how having the option of shooting at a would-be attacker is a bad thing...

(and preferably ones not sponsored by the NRA since you know, bit of a conflict of interest there.)

But I bet that you actually believe studies done by anti-gun groups. Yeah, most people have an agenda. That is why I said above about "defensive gun use" studies to throw out the high and low scores (get rid of the obviously biased ones) and average the rest. Unlike people like you, I try to get at the TRUTH and not just pick biased studies that "prove" my point.

Yep. Fact of life. But you can do things to reduce the amount of people who die without resorting to a black and white "if its not zero then we may as well not bother at all" anti-logic.

Exactly MY point. If you did somehow remove ALL guns, you save a few lives (not all, murderers will still use other weapons), but you also may have MORE victims, since the criminals have much less fear of their victims! People often spout "gun deaths" like removing all guns would stop all of those people from dying -- which is a lie. Most "gun deaths" are suicides, and a suicidal person has plenty of other options besides guns. Even gun homicides would mostly just turn to knife homicides.

Yeah, its such a shitty world when we have to only worry about the second most deadly weapon. If only they'd start shooting each other more often then we could stop worrying about knives! That's like saying we shouldn't bother curing cancer because then we'd just be worrying more about heart attacks

This is more about the mind-set and the attitude. Let's keep on taking away rights and criminalizing more stuff until a murderer cannot commit murder. That is simply NEVER going to happen, unless you want to cut down all trees so that a criminal can't get a stick or a board to beat somebody with. A **LOT** of people carry a knife at a tool and kill nobody, but people like YOU want to turn them into criminals. No thank you. Do you want to live in a world where Gordon Ramsay is evil because of his constant use of deadly weapons?

Nobody said we shouldn't do that as well. These things aren't mutually exclusive and in fact are complementary in a lot of ways.

Figuring out WHY people are violent (social issues) should be the #1 goal. Taking a weapon out of the hands of a murderer still leaves a murderer with a different weapon. Get rid of the criminal and you don't have to worry about how many guns there are. DUH!

Yep. I much prefer being mocked for worrying about knives than being legitimately worried about guns.

You much prefer a world where honest people can be arrested for carrying a common multi-tool? Why don't you just go to prison -- that sounds about perfect for you - the residents are all disarmed. Some people are not mature enough to handle freedom.

Let's be honest here -- you are a hypocrite. You say that you want to take away rights to make people safer, but YOU get to choose WHICH rights. You only want to take away the rights that YOU happen to not care about. I can prove it...

How about, instead of repealing the 2nd Amendment, we repeal the 4th? Make it legal for the police to search you on a hunch. Make "driving while black" be reasonable suspicion. Have random checkpoints where every citizen is searched. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why would you care, right? However, I bet that you would scream and cry if this happened, because you happen to CARE about the that particular right. So, you give yourself the right to pick and choose which civil rights actually matter, despite the potential to save a LOT of lives by ignoring the 4th Amendment.

For the record, I also love the 4th Amendment and would fight for that too, if morons decided that taking away that right was "for my own good."

Comment Re:White-washed submission (Score 1) 76

The point being a 'patent troll' is defined as some entity holding patents, but not actually *making* anything. Bad for both being a leech, but also challenging as the potential to fight back to pursue cross-licensing is impossible since the attack doesn't do anything.

Now if you think the patents are stupid and not worthy of being patent, that's something else and I'm particularly inclined to agree about the VFAT patent. But 'patent troll' is a specific phenomenon, and Microsoft is not (yet) in that role.

Comment Re:sounds nice, but... (Score 1) 538

Though one of the chiefly cited daemons (pulseaudio) is in the same ballpark with the same set of developers available to work it.

The problem with your logic is that at some point pulseaudio and the like could in turn decides it wants to declare itself as 'really wanting to persist' using the systemd mechanism, and again be running stray. Then systemd could add yet another layer of 'really *really* mean to persist. It's an arms race of crappy software. The question is 'why does the daemon *think* it needs to persist?' not 'how can we invent a way to ignore their request to persist and hope they don't update to the new scheme'.

Comment Re:sounds nice, but... (Score 1) 538

The point being that it's what systemd upstream decided would be a good default behavior. This speaks to the mindset of the architects and how it factors to their general design.

Yes when they offer choices, distros can opt out. However they are inventing new paradigms where existing ones already serve.

Slashdot Top Deals

The ideal voice for radio may be defined as showing no substance, no sex, no owner, and a message of importance for every housewife. -- Harry V. Wade