While I am a linux user already, a friend of mine recently said something along these lines. He then qualified it with something like:
"But then, linux probably won't have AAA games until windows 9. Now it seems to me that every other version of windows sucks (2K/XP, Vista/7), and the version after it is just fine. So I'll probably continue using windows if 9 doesn't suck. At least, until windows 10, which will suck. I'll probably switch then."
While this would be a useful tool to keep alive the 2nd Amendment should gun control actually begin disarming the US public, I have some concerns that the primary use of this design will be something else. Now of course, trying to keep technology like this down would be silly and it may already exist in some more obscure corner of the internet, but it probably isn`t something I would put money towards.
Lets assume that the gun this produces is reliable, but only a one or two shot weapon. It is plastic and evades metal detectors (ok, perhaps the bullets don`t), It small and concealable, it is a handgun. It has a relatively low cost. Some types of crime would benefit from such a weapon becoming readily available. Smaller armed robberies could make use of this, as well as people looking for an extra means of self defense should one of your associates turn on you. Burglars could be more likely to have guns. Regular citizens would have some trouble owning these guns under certain gun-control laws, since if the police finds them, you're in trouble, which might not be the case for other weapons. If you submit one of these for registration, you missed part of the point that these guys are fundraising for.
That said, I believe the use to the US militia will be relatively small unless gun control actually begins to prevent people from actually owning rifles and handguns to a significant portion of the population which has not happened yet, and due to the power of the (perhaps somewhat idiotic) NRA lobby, is unlikely to happen soon. Given the choice between this and a metal handgun, you choose the metal handgun unless you have to conceal it from, say, a metal detector. Having only one handgun shot probably won't help you that much against the armored government agents you'd be up against should a revolution actually occur.
Where on earth can you buy bullets and not buy guns to go with them? Unless there is also 3D-pritable bullets and gunpowder, I'm not sure how this is useful.
It is easy enough to buy bullets,even with gun regulations. Sure if guns are completely banned in some places, it will be moderately difficult to acquire ammo. However, most places in Canada and the US only have gun-registries. For instance, handguns where I am here have to be stored in a secure location, separate from ammo, and you have to call the police if you want to take it anywhere (and tell them you are going to a shooting range). Getting ammo isn`t a problem, its getting a gun that the police cannot track as easily.
Even in places where ammo is not available, it may not be illegal and can be safely acquired via a vacation to the US. Finally, should ammo be illegal, it is much easier to sell bullets discreetly than guns. Seriously, how are you going to prevent someone from, say, hiding a bullet in a computer case and shipping it (or even putting it through checked baggage).
Impressive. I suspect that sort of business model could work very well for many sorts of goods that have a near-zero reproduction cost (even if that small cost may add-up per person or if the R&D costs are very large).
I am familiar with clicking on the "I agree" checkbox when buying games. What was seriously annoying to me today, was that when I opened steam I had to click through an "agree" button *in order to access existing games*. For what it is worth, Valve is still better than the rest of the gaming industry concerning issues like this, but that doesn't mean that they aren't being asshats too.
I'll second this. The freezer trick does work, and I havee used it to bring a hard drive back to life for just long enough to get the data I wanted off of it. It would work fine for a very short amount of time after boot, and then it would start producing more read errors, and eventually would become completely unreadable until turning the computer off and on again. After putting it in the freezer, the amount of time I had with the drive was enough for me to say my goodbyes and copy my data. Naturally, drive necromancy of this sort only creates temporary slave drives, and I suspect condensation would drive it even further into the depths of Hades, but the data really is all that is important in these cases.
Trolling, the post is assuming that a system run by the MPAA is good and should work. You just don't see that in a serious post on Slashdot. And if it is, you don't take it seriously anyways:P
The bonus is for the fiscal year, so it makes sense to count the bonus towards yearly wages, doesn't it? I seem to recall a (working) year being in that ballpark number of days.
Dude, the GPL is one of the most simple licenses out there. Perhaps this isn't an issue with the other licenses because everyone just assumes that they will not be enforced, which strikes me as odd. But I still do not get how people miscontstrue the GPL in such a variety of ways.
If you make an image with GIMP the image does not need to be released under the GPL! You are free to use the GPLed program, in this case GIMP for any purpose (seriously, for *any purpose*). An image created using GIMP is not a derivative work of GIMP, since no part of GIMP exists in the image. If you were to modify the source code of GIMP, then that would be a derivative work, but so long as that work is not distributed, you still do not have any oblications under the GPL. If you release your modification of GIMP then you must provide the source code licensed under the GPL and not use patents/copyrights to sue anyone over their use of your modified GIMP.
So the GPL is completely viable for software that is used to create content, because it has absolutely no restrictions on that created content. You do not need to give people a copy of GIMP with every image you create with it, that is not what the text of the license says. Seriously, where did you get that idea? And just in case you need a citation, behold the GPL FAQ!
Seriously, where do you get this sort of misinformation?
On a side note, the ffmpeg issue is not as clear cut as you claim, since they don't use a normal GPL, but use a modified LGPL v2. I haven't read the ffmpeg license, but the LGPL allows linking, so they don't have to distribute ffmpeg, and it most likely doesn't properly exist in their software product anyways (remember, linking).
Guess what: our intelligence activities and capabilities are secret, not because we want to "hide them from the public", but because they necessarily remain secret for the precise reasons the courts ruled the way they did in this case: so that our ADVERSARIES don't understand our sources, methods, capabilities, and responses.
Doesn't this also effect the safety of the public, if the methods, capabillities and legal obligations of the NSA are unknown? Note that the existence of the partnership, according an article in the post linked to by TFA, is already known, and the technical capabillities provided to the NSA by this relationship can therefore be roughly estimated. It isn't like the NSA hasn't violated the US constitution (taking the overly optimistic view that it is still in effect) and due process before.
I know most people here believe the NSA is evil, instead of looking across the Pacific to a country that can scarcely wait to displace the US as a global power, while keeping a firm stranglehold on its citizens. I imagine there will be many tired references to the Utah Data Center in the comments section here, too, from people who completely misunderstand the law, and NSA's purpose and missions.
Are you certain it is not you who misunderstands the NSA's purpose and missions? How can you, when the government's interpretation of the law is kept secret? Do you really believe the NSA serves the interests of the people of the USA any more than the TSA? Isn't it possible for both the NSA and the Chinese intelligence agencies to be evil and worthy of mistrust?
I am one of those slashdotters who uses DuckDuckGo. TOR introduced me to it, and you should use it too. For all of the talk about privacy on slashdot, I would expect more people to be using it.
Unless of course, they are exercising their privacy and not mentioning it
"nature intended" - really? in this forum? Good luck avoiding the hailstorm.
Actually, it makes more sense than some might initially think. I'm sure most of us here have heard of the terrible situation with "inactive ingredients", substitutes for salt and sugar, and bovine growth hormone. Honestly, some of this stuff just isn't safe. Who here really thinks the FDA will fail to approve lab-grown meat if properly funded? There is a great deal that could go wrong with this stuff. The best way to understand the health effects of lab-grown meat would be to run an appropriately lengthy study on human consumption and health, and a spectroscopic analysis. Unfortunately, there is very little chance such a thing will be done, so there really is no way to be sure that it is exactly the same as "nature" intended it to be.
He who lives with the lawsuit may get fined a few hundred thousand dollars, perhaps wince. At very worst, he'll be given a few large bonuses and then move on to another company.
So what is it you are saying? You think that good intentions could take away the blame for what you personally did to those poor bastards in Iraq? You think that the fact that you eventually got Hussein makes the hundered thousand civilians who died because of you and people like you worth it? Do you really honestly expect me to believe that you didn't serve the unlawful orders of GWB in all that you did "for" the people you wanted to help?
Fuck why you served, sir. Congratulations on your accomplishments. You have liberated the oil of Iraq. If only you could have done the same for their people.
When the "adults" in the global community are talking about invading a country, likely at the cost of millions of lives, because Iran *might* be a weapon capable of killing a couple million people, even though there is no real evidence that Iran has even been trying to do so, the act of threating navigation on the high seas, racisim and sponsoring terrorism doesn't sound all that immature.
Iran does has a terrible human rights situation. It practices torture, is hostile to free speech, may wish to invade a foreign country, does not regognize the legitimacy of a foreign government, has supported terrorism, is cracking down on on peaceful protestors, has some openlay racist politicians, and more. Its even worse than the USA. However, I get the feeling that the politicans talking about Iran don't really give a damn about that. I imagine they are quite concerned about the straight of hormuz, however. Besides, there has to be something to replace Iraq sooner or later. Keep in mind what happened the last time the US accused someone of having nuclear weapons.
Ironically, it seems to me that if the US does decide it wants to attack Iran, a fully operating nuclear bomb would be a wondeful device to deter them, saving millions of lives. North Korea began building nuclear weapons for that very purpose. It seems to have worked out for them, and the world hasn't ended yet so far:).
As a side note: talking about china is only confusing the issue. It was around the time of the cold war was going on when china aquired nukes, and that was insignificant compared to Russia. The only thing the US could do by complaining about Chineese nuclear weapons is harm diplomatic relations.
Finally, if Iran does decide to nuke someone without military provocation, chances are it will be Israel, not anyone in Europe.
Not so, it is well known that facebook compiles information on people who do not have facebook accounts, sometimes referred to as "shadow profiles". Between your friends pictures of you and related informations, your family's pictures of you and related information, your coworker's pictures of you and related information, and easily crawlable information about yourself (contact information on employer's website?), I think facebook can provide fairly comprehensive surveillance. Don't get out much? Facebook can ascertain that, depending on the posting habits of your friends, family and coworkers. Sure, some information will undoubtedly be missed, but I suspect sufficient information can be gathered about you even without a facebook account. And even if they cannot trace it back to you, the "like" buttons are always gathering your browsing habits. I think I even see some here on slashdot...
They are watching, and this time, no tinfoil hat can save you.
Slashdot Mirror
While I am a linux user already, a friend of mine recently said something along these lines. He then qualified it with something like:
"But then, linux probably won't have AAA games until windows 9. Now it seems to me that every other version of windows sucks (2K/XP, Vista/7), and the version after it is just fine. So I'll probably continue using windows if 9 doesn't suck. At least, until windows 10, which will suck. I'll probably switch then."
crap, posting to undo mod.
While this would be a useful tool to keep alive the 2nd Amendment should gun control actually begin disarming the US public, I have some concerns that the primary use of this design will be something else. Now of course, trying to keep technology like this down would be silly and it may already exist in some more obscure corner of the internet, but it probably isn`t something I would put money towards.
Lets assume that the gun this produces is reliable, but only a one or two shot weapon. It is plastic and evades metal detectors (ok, perhaps the bullets don`t), It small and concealable, it is a handgun. It has a relatively low cost. Some types of crime would benefit from such a weapon becoming readily available. Smaller armed robberies could make use of this, as well as people looking for an extra means of self defense should one of your associates turn on you. Burglars could be more likely to have guns. Regular citizens would have some trouble owning these guns under certain gun-control laws, since if the police finds them, you're in trouble, which might not be the case for other weapons. If you submit one of these for registration, you missed part of the point that these guys are fundraising for.
That said, I believe the use to the US militia will be relatively small unless gun control actually begins to prevent people from actually owning rifles and handguns to a significant portion of the population which has not happened yet, and due to the power of the (perhaps somewhat idiotic) NRA lobby, is unlikely to happen soon. Given the choice between this and a metal handgun, you choose the metal handgun unless you have to conceal it from, say, a metal detector. Having only one handgun shot probably won't help you that much against the armored government agents you'd be up against should a revolution actually occur.
Where on earth can you buy bullets and not buy guns to go with them? Unless there is also 3D-pritable bullets and gunpowder, I'm not sure how this is useful.
It is easy enough to buy bullets,even with gun regulations. Sure if guns are completely banned in some places, it will be moderately difficult to acquire ammo. However, most places in Canada and the US only have gun-registries. For instance, handguns where I am here have to be stored in a secure location, separate from ammo, and you have to call the police if you want to take it anywhere (and tell them you are going to a shooting range). Getting ammo isn`t a problem, its getting a gun that the police cannot track as easily.
Even in places where ammo is not available, it may not be illegal and can be safely acquired via a vacation to the US. Finally, should ammo be illegal, it is much easier to sell bullets discreetly than guns. Seriously, how are you going to prevent someone from, say, hiding a bullet in a computer case and shipping it (or even putting it through checked baggage).
Impressive. I suspect that sort of business model could work very well for many sorts of goods that have a near-zero reproduction cost (even if that small cost may add-up per person or if the R&D costs are very large).
Excellent post. (Posting to keep this in my slashdot history, I could save the link somewhere, but meh)
I am familiar with clicking on the "I agree" checkbox when buying games. What was seriously annoying to me today, was that when I opened steam I had to click through an "agree" button *in order to access existing games*. For what it is worth, Valve is still better than the rest of the gaming industry concerning issues like this, but that doesn't mean that they aren't being asshats too.
Awesome post. And now I don't have mod points.
I'll second this. The freezer trick does work, and I havee used it to bring a hard drive back to life for just long enough to get the data I wanted off of it. It would work fine for a very short amount of time after boot, and then it would start producing more read errors, and eventually would become completely unreadable until turning the computer off and on again. After putting it in the freezer, the amount of time I had with the drive was enough for me to say my goodbyes and copy my data. Naturally, drive necromancy of this sort only creates temporary slave drives, and I suspect condensation would drive it even further into the depths of Hades, but the data really is all that is important in these cases.
"Military Grade" is a political fiction, the civilian AR-15 is functionally identical to popular hunting rifles.
Except he managed to shoot 79 people within the span of a couple minutes. Do you think that is even remotely possible with a regular hunting rifle?
Given an extended magazine (no need to reload), and 2 bullets per second, yes, absolutely. Any rifle that supports an extended magazine.
Trolling, the post is assuming that a system run by the MPAA is good and should work. You just don't see that in a serious post on Slashdot. And if it is, you don't take it seriously anyways :P
The bonus is for the fiscal year, so it makes sense to count the bonus towards yearly wages, doesn't it? I seem to recall a (working) year being in that ballpark number of days.
Dude, the GPL is one of the most simple licenses out there. Perhaps this isn't an issue with the other licenses because everyone just assumes that they will not be enforced, which strikes me as odd. But I still do not get how people miscontstrue the GPL in such a variety of ways.
If you make an image with GIMP the image does not need to be released under the GPL! You are free to use the GPLed program, in this case GIMP for any purpose (seriously, for *any purpose*). An image created using GIMP is not a derivative work of GIMP, since no part of GIMP exists in the image. If you were to modify the source code of GIMP, then that would be a derivative work, but so long as that work is not distributed, you still do not have any oblications under the GPL. If you release your modification of GIMP then you must provide the source code licensed under the GPL and not use patents/copyrights to sue anyone over their use of your modified GIMP.
So the GPL is completely viable for software that is used to create content, because it has absolutely no restrictions on that created content. You do not need to give people a copy of GIMP with every image you create with it, that is not what the text of the license says. Seriously, where did you get that idea? And just in case you need a citation, behold the GPL FAQ!
Seriously, where do you get this sort of misinformation?
On a side note, the ffmpeg issue is not as clear cut as you claim, since they don't use a normal GPL, but use a modified LGPL v2. I haven't read the ffmpeg license, but the LGPL allows linking, so they don't have to distribute ffmpeg, and it most likely doesn't properly exist in their software product anyways (remember, linking).
Guess what: our intelligence activities and capabilities are secret, not because we want to "hide them from the public", but because they necessarily remain secret for the precise reasons the courts ruled the way they did in this case: so that our ADVERSARIES don't understand our sources, methods, capabilities, and responses.
Doesn't this also effect the safety of the public, if the methods, capabillities and legal obligations of the NSA are unknown? Note that the existence of the partnership, according an article in the post linked to by TFA, is already known, and the technical capabillities provided to the NSA by this relationship can therefore be roughly estimated. It isn't like the NSA hasn't violated the US constitution (taking the overly optimistic view that it is still in effect) and due process before.
I know most people here believe the NSA is evil, instead of looking across the Pacific to a country that can scarcely wait to displace the US as a global power, while keeping a firm stranglehold on its citizens. I imagine there will be many tired references to the Utah Data Center in the comments section here, too, from people who completely misunderstand the law, and NSA's purpose and missions.
Are you certain it is not you who misunderstands the NSA's purpose and missions? How can you, when the government's interpretation of the law is kept secret? Do you really believe the NSA serves the interests of the people of the USA any more than the TSA? Isn't it possible for both the NSA and the Chinese intelligence agencies to be evil and worthy of mistrust?
The only thing that's unique about Siri is that the search engine companies can't put their ads in there.
I can imagine it right now: "Thank you for your question, your answer is sponsered by alienware...avaliable now at your local retailer."
Just you wait.
I have never noticed the ads, even though I do not have that option turned off, either.
I have adblock.
I am one of those slashdotters who uses DuckDuckGo. TOR introduced me to it, and you should use it too. For all of the talk about privacy on slashdot, I would expect more people to be using it.
Unless of course, they are exercising their privacy and not mentioning it
Bah, above post belongs to me, although that doesn't matter now.
"nature intended" - really? in this forum?
Good luck avoiding the hailstorm.
Actually, it makes more sense than some might initially think. I'm sure most of us here have heard of the terrible situation with "inactive ingredients", substitutes for salt and sugar, and bovine growth hormone. Honestly, some of this stuff just isn't safe. Who here really thinks the FDA will fail to approve lab-grown meat if properly funded? There is a great deal that could go wrong with this stuff. The best way to understand the health effects of lab-grown meat would be to run an appropriately lengthy study on human consumption and health, and a spectroscopic analysis. Unfortunately, there is very little chance such a thing will be done, so there really is no way to be sure that it is exactly the same as "nature" intended it to be.
He who lives with the lawsuit may get fined a few hundred thousand dollars, perhaps wince. At very worst, he'll be given a few large bonuses and then move on to another company.
That is a good question.
Here is a submission for ontopic discussion (if that indeed matters): http://slashdot.org/submission/1939389/slashdot-institutes-abuse-reporting-for-comments
Mod Parent up. The question is not one of stopping the technology from being used, but how to put effective limits on its use.
So what is it you are saying? You think that good intentions could take away the blame for what you personally did to those poor bastards in Iraq? You think that the fact that you eventually got Hussein makes the hundered thousand civilians who died because of you and people like you worth it? Do you really honestly expect me to believe that you didn't serve the unlawful orders of GWB in all that you did "for" the people you wanted to help?
Fuck why you served, sir. Congratulations on your accomplishments. You have liberated the oil of Iraq. If only you could have done the same for their people.
When the "adults" in the global community are talking about invading a country, likely at the cost of millions of lives, because Iran *might* be a weapon capable of killing a couple million people, even though there is no real evidence that Iran has even been trying to do so, the act of threating navigation on the high seas, racisim and sponsoring terrorism doesn't sound all that immature.
Iran does has a terrible human rights situation. It practices torture, is hostile to free speech, may wish to invade a foreign country, does not regognize the legitimacy of a foreign government, has supported terrorism, is cracking down on on peaceful protestors, has some openlay racist politicians, and more. Its even worse than the USA. However, I get the feeling that the politicans talking about Iran don't really give a damn about that. I imagine they are quite concerned about the straight of hormuz, however. Besides, there has to be something to replace Iraq sooner or later. Keep in mind what happened the last time the US accused someone of having nuclear weapons.
Ironically, it seems to me that if the US does decide it wants to attack Iran, a fully operating nuclear bomb would be a wondeful device to deter them, saving millions of lives. North Korea began building nuclear weapons for that very purpose. It seems to have worked out for them, and the world hasn't ended yet so far :).
As a side note: talking about china is only confusing the issue. It was around the time of the cold war was going on when china aquired nukes, and that was insignificant compared to Russia. The only thing the US could do by complaining about Chineese nuclear weapons is harm diplomatic relations.
Finally, if Iran does decide to nuke someone without military provocation, chances are it will be Israel, not anyone in Europe.
Not so, it is well known that facebook compiles information on people who do not have facebook accounts, sometimes referred to as "shadow profiles". Between your friends pictures of you and related informations, your family's pictures of you and related information, your coworker's pictures of you and related information, and easily crawlable information about yourself (contact information on employer's website?), I think facebook can provide fairly comprehensive surveillance. Don't get out much? Facebook can ascertain that, depending on the posting habits of your friends, family and coworkers. Sure, some information will undoubtedly be missed, but I suspect sufficient information can be gathered about you even without a facebook account. And even if they cannot trace it back to you, the "like" buttons are always gathering your browsing habits. I think I even see some here on slashdot...
They are watching, and this time, no tinfoil hat can save you.