Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:Can we just put her in now? (Score 1) 57

No president can save "us". But collectivism thinks the "us" we elect, can save the "us" we are. Because we (us) end up shirking any responsibilty we (us) have to save ourselves. And then, we wonder why 8 years of Clinton, 8 Years of Bush, 8 years of Obama and we're not "saved" yet (and quite possibly worse off than ever).

So, Boo me all you want, but my views are on my profile, and you can review them all you want. Hillary is just another in a long line of people promising things she cannot deliver. I have no doubt that Trump is doing the same. The ONLY person speaking of what they ACTUALLY can deliver, is Gary Johnson. But everyone is too busy arguing over who is worse, Hillary or Donald. And if that is the real debate, then we are doomed.

It is a tie, they are both the worst.

Comment Re:Can we just put her in now? (Score 1) 57

No worries there mate. I am one of those people who aren't voting for either of them. Call my vote wasted, and that is fine, I couldn't vote for McCain, Obama, or that Mormon guy. I couldn't vote for GWB, Kerry, or Gore. And so on back to about Reagan (when I was young and stupid) whom I voted for. But that was the last of the two party candidates I actually voted for.

People misunderstand my attacks on Hillary as being "Pro Trump", which only exposes their illogical binary logic, "If you not for me, you're against me" (A. Skywalker/Darth Vader). I was recently accused of "hate" towards Hillary, and I said that I didn't hate her, I had contempt for her. Hate is a different connotation than contempt, but some people can't figure out how words have different meanings. I have similar contempt for Trump, and I don't hate him either.

I reserve the word "hate" for people that I have a visceral dislike for, and they actually have to have done something pretty awful to me or my family or friends. Wanna know someone I "hate" (he's probably dead now, may he burn in hell) it is ...Brad Bishop ( I would quite literally kill that motherfucker if I ever see him. I would literally beat the crap of of that guy, and gut him, feed his own entrails to him, and say "Eat Shit and die asshole" ... THAT is hate.

Comment Re:Ok, let me get this straight... (Score 1) 296

That very page you linked to says that for every type of gun, if it's allowed to own at all, you need a license. The table I linked to further says that, unlike most of Europe, such a license can be denied at a whim of an official, and in practice usually gets denied. Handgun licenses in particular are denied unless you prove a specific threat to life.

And even if you do own a license, you can't keep the gun in a place where it could actually be useful but only unloaded in a locked safe.

Comment But then who audits the auditors? (Score 1) 148

The solution is pretty simple, but often skipped:
1) The reason for every search should be required and logged by the searcher. ...
2) The logs be randomly spot-checked by an auditor(s) who verifies the reasons given by interviewing the person(s) who searched.

But to check it the auditors need detailed access to the records. So who audits THEM?

This kind of question has been asked repeatedly since at least the Roman Empire.

(The U.S. answer to "Who guards the guardians?" , at least for direct abuse of person under color of law, is the Fourth and Fifth amendments and the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine: Fail to follow the law and you don't get a conviction, because misbehaving police are FAR more of a problem for the population than even a lot of violent private-enterprise crooks going back to work. But while it does reduce the incentive, it doesn't block the behavior.)

Comment The invisible hand strikes. (Score 1) 89

Not one organization I have ever worked for has seriously cared about IT security.

When it comes to rolling out new products, ignoring security is the norm.

This is because the "window of opportunity" is only "open" for a short time - until the first, second, and maybe third movers go through it and grab most of the potential customers. Companies that spent the time to get the security right arrive at the window after it closes.

This happens anywhere the customers don't test for and reject non-secure versions of the "new shiny" - which means enterprises sometimes hold suppliers' feet to the fire (if the new thing doesn't give them an advantage commensurate with, or perceived as outweighing, the risk) but consumer stuff goes out wide open.

Then, if you're lucky and the supplier is clueful, they retrofit SOME security before the bad guys exploit enough holes to kill them.

I expect this will continue until several big-name tech companies get an effective corporate death penalty in response to the damages their customer base took from their security failings. Then the financial types will start including having a good, and improving with time, security story (no doubt called "best practices") among their check boxes for funding.

Comment Re:Why not coax? (Score 1) 150

And the reason you cannot do this with radio is that the noise from the transmitter is greater than the received signal.

Actually you CAN manage it with radio - very difficultly, with very careful antenna design.

But the combined antenna has to be far from anything that reflects, absorbs, or just phase-shifts any substantial amount of the transmitted signal energy. If not, the discontinuity destroys the careful balance that nulls out the transmitted signal at the receiver. That gets you back to the "transmitter shouts in the receiver's ear much louder than the distant communications partner" case. So it's not very practical in the real world.

Comment Re:don't get your hope up (Score 3, Insightful) 128

It doesn't matter how many hours you put in if you were enticed by and promised things that don't exist in the game. You could love the game, give it honestly rave reviews, and play it every day for 8 hours. Doesn't matter. Your playing or not playing the game, or a better way to put it is, the behavior of the purchaser subsequent to purchase has no bearing on the advertising tactics and their honesty/dishonesty in describing the game. Money should be refunded based on the request of the purchaser because of the actions of the selling company previous to purchase. Everything that happens after purchase is immaterial.

Why? Because even if someone played the game for 400000 hours, they would never get what was promised in the advertising. IMHO the penalties should go up with play time. It means that person has been defrauded of the missing material more than someone who barely plays the game.

Comment Re:Self-sustaining civilization on Mars (Score 1) 346

How about we first master having a self-sustaining civilization on Earth?

Already done. Too well. That's why we have population growth when we don't need it anymore. The more advanced sectors of society are actually shrinking, population-wise and resource-use-wise. It's the slow to catch up third world that hasn't refined its culture to the point where having too many babies eases off on its own.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing ever becomes real until it is experienced. - John Keats