Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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

Comment Well... (Score 1) 4

That's fine if you only care about yourself. I have a friend (actually an ex-brother in law) who does have kids who shares your opinion.

Personally, I'd like to have the species continue, even though once the Earth dies a natural death by then (4 billion years from now), humans will be less like us than a bonobo.

Comment Successful? (Score 1) 3

I wouldn't call someone who was born into riches and loaned a million dollars interest-free who later declared bankruptcy four times and is being sued for fraud a "successful businessman." Actually, that may be a good thing, look how Bruce Rauner, a truly successful businessman, is totally screwing up Illinois governance. Christ, he's worse than the incompetent Quinn and the two jailed felons who came before him.

You can no more run a government like a business than you can run a business like a government. Just because you can drive an eighteen wheeler doesn't mean you're fit to race a motorcross, or even a Formula One.

The press is anti-Trump because they're not mindless fools.

Comment Re:Soooo (Score 1) 145

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...

http://freebeacon.com/issues/n...

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... :

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:eh (Score 1) 297

The article is about the kernel, not the distros, which vary wildly. (This is also why it's a shame GNU/Linux, as a term, didn't catch on, leaving aside Stallman's feelings. Everyone hears "Linux" and automatically assumes someone is talking about the entire operating system, when it's also the name of the kernel. See also Java, which has similar problems.)

Comment Test-driven Excel (Score 1) 264

I'm a relative newbie to Excel but the first thing I learned was never to trust any of the cells where any calculations are performed.

As my spreadsheets got more and more complex I quickly realised small errors in one worksheet could manifest themselves in really ugly - but very subtle - ways. One simple-looking calculation on one worksheet could blow out an entire model if it there was even a small typo.

I suspect many people using Excel haven't learned this lesson yet. I was lucky that I noticed it myself before learning the hard way.

My solution was to have entirely separate worksheets where I would basically apply rough/simple TDD principles - have some known quantities and results in any complex calculation sections and make sure they were clearly visible at all time. That way as the spreadsheet evolves it can help you catch small errors before they ruin their day.

I'm sure pro Excel people have many more useful tricks.

Comment Re: Linux. (Score 1) 393

take the window min/max/close buttons on MacOSX and Ubuntu, which for some reason they decided to put on the left instead of the right which everyone has been made familiar with over the last couple decades. ... And to what end?

That's pretty simple: the original Windows design is poor, because it's very easy to mis-click when trying to maximize and instead close your program, because some moron at MS though it'd be a great idea to stick the two tiny buttons right next to each other.

If you have a hard time figuring out how to use a window-close button on the left side, you're going to have a real problem when you're sat down at a Windows 8 or 10 computer with its "charms" and touchscreen-oriented UI.

Minor quibble, but I'm gonna bite:
The Ubuntu design is just as poor, because what the designers did was move all three buttons to the left. So you can still mis-click. Moving "minimize" and "maximize" to the left but leaving "close" on the right would have been much smarter.

BTW, you can edit the configuration in Ubuntu to change the button positions to the right. I don't think I've ever seen such an option in Windows.

One of MY pet peeves in Xubuntu are single-pixel window borders that make click-and-drag resizing very difficult. But those, too, can be edited.
There are even pre-designed console commands on the net: https://softsolder.com/2015/01/28/wider-borders-in-xfce-xubuntu/

 

Comment Re:So long as we're trying such elaborate measures (Score 1) 191

Another example of VERY flawed logic.

Suppose that I had a relative who was killed by a red car. I go on a crusade saying that all red cars are dangerous and get the laws changed -- red cars are now illegal. After 10 years, the number of red-car-involved deaths effectively drops to zero. So, I can now claim success and that taking red cars off of the streets has made the streets safer.

My forcing murderers to use different tools does not make them stop being murderers.

Other countries also have different amounts of racial diversity, different languages, different economies, different mental health care systems, and different languages. Clearly we can ignore all of those other differences and only focus on the one difference that proves your point.

I could play the same game. In Japan there are not privately-owned guns, and they have a LOT more suicides. If Japan had more guns, their suicide rate would go down. See how that works?

Comment Re:So long as we're trying such elaborate measures (Score 1) 191

I find it funny how some people blame Chicago's violence problems on other cities with more lax laws. The interesting thing is how other cities with more guns generally have LESS CRIME.

So, we have two cities: one with high crime, and one with low crime. Obviously, the solution is to take the laws of the failing city and force those on the city that is doing OK. Yeah, right. This is like taking a test and cheating off of the dumbest kid in the class. If I were running a business, I would want to take business advice from the company that is making money, not the one that is going bankrupt. However, this is exactly what people want when they say that the problem with Chicago is that their laws are not nation-wide.

Comment Re:Subsidizing Businesses.... (Score 1) 442

No it's like taxing car owners to subsidize other car owners.

Uber and Lyft are taxi companies. They're not high tech replacements, they're not a radical new business model, they're the same effing thing, albeit with management that has decided, for some reason, that their services should be exempt from the same regulatory structure as pre-existing taxis because Ayn Rand.

In that respect, it's like taxing car owners who refuse to get licenses to subsidize licensed car owners.

Is that stupid? Well yes. But not because one is subsidizing another. It's stupid because both should be licensed.

Oh, but there's some good reason why Lyft and Uber have decided they don't like the current licensing system? Fine. Then look into it, and if it's really good, then implement reforms. The other 90% of the regulatory environment though, from quotas in cities with overcrowded streets to stop them from being even more clogged with taxis than they were already, to requiring insurance and ensuring basic accountability, that needs to stay.

This is a stupid decision, but it has nothing to do with subsidies. It has to do with the fact it doesn't address the underlying problems: Uber's lawlessness, and overregulation of the existing taxi market. Instead it buys into the fiction that a car ordered over the Internet is not a taxi. It is a taxi. Stop lying.

Comment Gradual move to Linux planned (Score 1) 393

I already use Linux for highly sensitive stuff aka online banking. Because I don't trust Windows to handle my PINs and TANs. Firefox under Linux obviously works, or I could not do my online banking with Linux.

Next will be e-mail, here I need to look for a way to move my mailbox over (currently in SeaMonkey on Windows). Essentially, I need an alternative for the e-mail part of MozBackup that works with Linux.

I expect that Office stuff will be easy, as I'm already using Libre Office on Windows. Loading the same files into the Linux version should be no problem, right?

Games can stay on Windows for now, although I might experiment with WINE a bit more.

Comment Re:And unwanted updates... (Score 1) 275

In this case, it may be honest incompetence by Microsoft ;-)

In a thread at superuser.com (http://superuser.com/questions/890038/why-is-checking-windows-update-so-slow/935299#935299) some people describe the update process as a horribly complex dependency tree the update agent has to process. The more patches add up, the worse it gets.

One guy who goes by "Dalai" has published a guide on how to shortcut the process (http://wu.krelay.de/en/).
It requires the user to manually download a few patches from Microsoft and apply them outside of the normal patching process. Those patches contain improvements to Windows Update that make the algorithm more efficient.

The problem as I understand it is that a fresh Windows 7 installation does not have those patches yet, and the original, un-optimized update algorithm gets bogged down trying to process the update dependencies (which it must do before it can install the updates). So the solution is to install those patches manually.

Comment Re:I've seen this before (Score 1) 404

You didn't read TFA. Earth - the planet as a whole - doesn't have a "Summer" and a "Winter", those are local (specifically Northern vs Southern hemisphere) phenomena. Australians are not enjoiying the same season as Europeans, for example.

TFA is about the average temperature of the entire Earth. It being "summer" where you are doesn't come in to it.




Slashdot Top Deals

Due to lack of disk space, this fortune database has been discontinued.

Working...