Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Fairness has a role (Score 1) 167

I don't really understand your point. Is it that govts can intervene and tell you to sell at a different price? Well, sure. We have all kinds of examples of govt all along a spectrum of interventionalism in markets. Parent was mostly saying that's a load of horseshit and you have every right to sell the fruits of your labor for whatever you want. Your reply really isn't s counter to that, if I'm understanding it correctly.

The patent issue is a tough one and I'm not saying it is set up correctly. But the purpose is not, as you say, to allow people to rely on them to create artificial monopolies. The purpose is to prevent unauthorized use by others of the fruits of your labor.

Comment Re:My public school system is great (Score 1) 297

> Those zoning decisions are anything but stupid. They're carefully thought out to achieve a certain goal.

There is a pretty strong consensus that poor zoning in SF, NYC, etc. is a major cause of housing unaffordability. e.g.

> The question that's being asked in TFS is: is that goal forcing families and lower income people out of San Fransisco?

Where do you get that from? TFS blamed long hours and public school quality.

> Remember, the young rich people there need poor and lower middle class people to cook food, clean, fix toilets, etc, etc. They're gonna get those people one way or the other. Abusing them (in the form of 4 hour commutes or tent cities) is one option.

4 hour commutes... I don't see how you'd ever get there. If these abused lower middle class people are necessary, then prices would increase until those people could continue to live within commute distance. This is the kind of comment people make by projecting a line from current state onward without any concern for counteracting market forces.

Regarding tent cities, well that is pretty much what I said in my comment. If you impede efficient sprawl, your only option is density.

If you are interested in this, I would suggest digging into the housing affordability debate. It is pretty rigorous and does not break on party/ideology lines as closely as you might expect. It is one of those rare topics where nuance is appreciated and you have some "civil wars" within party, especially in local elections. For example, here in Austin, there is a heavy debate between the people who want to use zoning to protect NIMBYs in their district while pushing high density housing into specific locations, and the people who want to encourage SFH growth everywhere, and people who just want to remove a lot of zoning restriction and let the market fix it (yes, these people are on the left). Another interesting source:

Comment Re:The dam is valuable, the parking lot crack not (Score 1) 304

No, you're not getting it. Let's try to improve my analogy so you can. Let's say that the dam is concrete and the concrete continues into an adjacent parking lot as one contiguous pour. Now let's assume there is a crack in the parking lot immediately next to the foot of the dam. Nobody gives a shit about the crack in the parking lot, except that if you don't fix it, it will spread to the dam.

The point is, if you think throwaway accounts at gaming sites, etc. are not valuable to hackers, you have not followed any security news in the last decade. When bullshit websites are hacked and user databases dumped with md5 hashed passwords, what happened? The hackers didn't jump for joy for their ability to steal cat memes. No, they took the passwords, cracked them, and tried to use the credentials at the major bank websites. Most people use the same damn password for everything and chances are a good % of the users in the hacked site will have a bank account at one of those majors.

There are hundreds more examples of this sort of thing. If identity were siloed, your logic would be sound. But your siloed view of identity is incredibly naive.

Comment Re:Security expert? (Score 1) 304

No, sorry, something about your reading comprehension is broken. Maybe you are more familiar with the law and the word "negligence" triggered the more narrow meaning in civil law. But nothing in my comment suggested I meant that, and quite the opposite. I think I was pretty clearly talking about home burglary, which would apply when the door is open, whereas a separate crime over and above that would apply (e.g., breaking & entering) if the door were locked.

Regarding the insurance policy, you're not countering my point. I'm explaining WHY the insurer generally excludes covering items stolen from unlocked homes or cars. NEGLIGENCE.

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken