Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Hubble To Use the Moon To View Transit of Venus

rewt66 Re:couldn't they just do this with earth based? (37 comments)

Not really. They'd have earth's atmosphere to account for. Since what they're trying to look at is Venus' atmosphere changing the spectrum of sunlight, getting Earth's atmosphere into the act would complicate things quite a bit...

more than 2 years ago
top

Jury Rules Google Violated Java Copyright, Google Moves For Mistrial

rewt66 Re:The Ruling Wasn't About Verbatim Copying (475 comments)

Well, it's not quite that simple. The judge said that a function prototype/signature was not copyrightable. Oracle's only claim, then, was that the "structure, sequence, and organization" of them was copyrightable. But that "structure, sequence, and organization" is the set of signatures that you provide, and which packages you put them in - which, in fact, is a pretty good description of the API.

more than 2 years ago
top

Jury Rules Google Violated Java Copyright, Google Moves For Mistrial

rewt66 Not what it sounds like (475 comments)

The jury was instructed that APIs were copyrightable. They found that Google infringed Sun/Oracle's Java API. But the judge will actually decide later whether APIs are in fact copyrightable (which question will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court before it's all over).

So what the jury actually decided doesn't mean much. It means that Google copied the Java API. Well, yeah, we knew that already.

more than 2 years ago
top

When Are You Dead?

rewt66 Re:I have an organ donor card... (516 comments)

I carry a donor card. Here's what it looks like to me: If I'm dead, you're welcome to the spare parts, because I don't need them anymore.

And if you don't take them, well, I'm still just as dead. Yeah, it's tragic that I'm dead, but that's a tragedy that's already happened (in our hypothetical situation), and you can't make it any better by refusing my organs.

more than 2 years ago
top

Are 10-11 Hour Programming Days Feasible?

rewt66 A rule from XP (eXtreme Programming) (997 comments)

Never work overtime for longer than a week.

Why? Because your brain gets tired. You make more mistakes. Mistakes slow you down enough that, after more than a week of overtime, net productivity goes down. (This isn't an assembly line, it's brain work.)

If your boss can't wrap his brain around that, start looking.

more than 3 years ago
top

Magnetic Pole Shift Affects Tampa Airport

rewt66 Birds (317 comments)

The birds got confused by the discrepancy between runway numbers and magnetic north, couldn't figure out where to land, ran out of fuel, and crashed?

more than 3 years ago
top

MPAA Dismisses COICA Free Speech Concerns

rewt66 You think WHAT????!!!??? (300 comments)

You think that an "executive agreement" both:
- has legal force, and
- is exempt from the first amendment?

Tell me your kidding.

More to the point, tell me that the Supreme Court does not agree with you...

more than 3 years ago
top

Fun With an Induction Cooktop?

rewt66 Rail gun (147 comments)

Hardware modding may be required. Remove ceiling or wall before use. If you try it, on your own head be it - I do not guarantee your safety.

more than 3 years ago
top

Microsoft Patents GPU-Accelerated Video Encoding

rewt66 Not novel (304 comments)

Look, we already went through the era of patenting obvious, well-known process X "with a computer". Then we went through patenting X "on the internet". We look back on that now, and we say, "Duh, putting it on a computer or on the internet didn't make it novel."

Is putting it on a GPU any better? No.

about 4 years ago
top

How Long Until We Commonly Use Flying Cars?

rewt66 Never (606 comments)

We'll never have flying cars (other than airplanes/helicopters) in regular use until we either have limitless, free entergy, or we have working anti-gravity. The energy cost is just too high otherwise.

about 4 years ago
top

Why Are Terrorists Often Engineers?

rewt66 Re:It's simple, really (769 comments)

Well, gays (engineer or no, doesn't matter) aren't going to be welcomed into an extremist Muslim organization.

more than 4 years ago
top

Denials Aside, Feds Storing Body Scan Images

rewt66 Re:Does not violate the Fourth Amendment? (560 comments)

Different 4th Amendment issue: Surveilance of your house from the street. If I understand correctly, the cops can look all they want, but they can't use any technology that "looks through walls" (infrared, etc.) without a warrant.

So, by analogy (always a dangerous way to reason), TSA should be able to look with their eyes, but not with anything that looks under people's clothes. To do otherwise is to violate the 4th Amendment.

And, they can't weasel out of it with "it doesn't apply to us", because TSA is a federal agency.

more than 4 years ago
top

Global Warming 'Undeniable,' Report Says

rewt66 Re:More Info & Dashboard (1657 comments)

That's not "ruining it for everyone". That's "ruining it for a few people who were already relying on a subsidy to engage in a marginal activity". That doesn't exactly overwhelm me with the need for concern.

Now, you could easily give examples of people who were subsistence farmers, who didn't have a subsidy, and if their activity goes from "marginal" to "no way", well...

more than 4 years ago
top

America Versus the UFO Hacker

rewt66 Savage punishment? (452 comments)

Which will be what? Imprisonment? Well, that's too bad. Don't break into our computers, and you won't have that problem.

Guantanamo? That's a different matter.

Or is the allegation that US prisons are, in and of themselves, cruel and unusual punishment?

more than 4 years ago
top

House Proposes Legalizing, Taxing Online Gambling

rewt66 Re:Can someone explain to me .. (473 comments)

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that "almost everything Jesus said was a general rule". Let's take a closer look at this particular conversation.

A rich guy comes to Jesus and asks what he has to do to inherit eternal life. Jesus walks him through the Ten Commandments. More specifically, the Ten Commandments has two parts: commandments 1-4, which deal with our relationship with God, and commandments 5-10, which deal with our relationships with people. Jesus dealt exclusively with the second section, but omitted commandment 10 (thou shalt not covet).

The rich guy said that he had done all that.

Then Jesus hit the guy with where his problem really was - his money. (This is tightly related to the covetousness that Jesus didn't mention in his first pass.) Jesus is saying, "This is your problem, you can't hold on to your money and still follow God." But that's because the money is what this guy is holding on to. If Jesus were talking to somebody else, he would go after what they were holding on to - maybe sex or pride of position.

See, you're either holding on to God, or to something else. If you're holding on to something else, that's what Jesus would go after - whatever it is for you. So it's not that having money is a problem, it's that holding on to the money (as the thing you put ahead of God) is a problem. Now, I will grant you that that problem is somewhat highly correlated with having lots of money, but not entirely so. (Poor people dream about the money they don't have instead of holding on to the money that they do have.)

Then, after the rich guy leaves, Jesus said that it's essentially impossible for the rich to get into heaven. Now, what made this such a bombshell is that the culture said that being rich was a sign of God's favor - so being rich meant that you were much more likely to get into heaven, right? But Jesus' point isn't that the rich have to give up their money to get into heaven, it's that you can't get into heaven any way but through him. So it's hard for EVERYBODY, not just for the rich. And, true, it may be especially hard for the rich, because it's really easy for them to grab onto something other than Jesus (money), and that means that they miss the only way.

But saying "Jesus clearly says in that passage that the only way for rich people to enter heaven is to drop their earthly possessions into the hands of the poor. All of it. For all of them. The passage can not be understood differently" is a bit much. No, Jesus didn't say that.

I refer you to Acts 5, where there were people selling their property and giving to those in need. And Ananias and Sapphira tried to fake it. Peter says, "When it was yours, did it not remain your own? And after you sold it, wasn't the money under your control?" The issue wasn't that they weren't giving it all, the issue was that they were trying to pretend that they had done more than they had. That means that Peter didn't understand Jesus the way you did. No offense, but my money's on Peter to be right.

more than 4 years ago
top

House Proposes Legalizing, Taxing Online Gambling

rewt66 Re:Can someone explain to me .. (473 comments)

But Jesus never said that the community owns everything, or anything close to that. He said, "YOU [the rich guy he was talking to at the moment] go and sell everything you have and give to the poor".

He didn't say "bring down the capitalist system", or "confiscate everything from those who own it, because property is theft, or because the community owns everything". He said, "You who owns this stuff, you voluntarily give it away, not because I'm changing the social order, but because I'm changing YOU".

That last paraphrase gets to the heart of the matter. Jesus was about changing people's hearts, not about changing the social order. The change in their hearts was supposed to change their behavior, including their behavior toward money. And that change was supposed to influence society. But the influence on society is a third-order effect. Jesus talks about money (the second-order effect) to expose the heart issue, which is what he's really after.

So, no, Jesus is NOT a socialist. I'll give you this, though - he's not a capitalist either.

more than 4 years ago
top

House Proposes Legalizing, Taxing Online Gambling

rewt66 Re:Can someone explain to me .. (473 comments)

"Jesus was a socialist"? Um, no.

Theoretically, Jesus was a theocrat - God rules. But practically, he told those living under occupation by a foreign empire (Rome) to pay their taxes, and that there was no disloyalty to God in doing so.

People say that Jesus was a socialist because he said things like "give to those who ask of you". But this is not at all what people call socialism. He didn't say "set up a government structure to take taxes from people and give to those who have need". Instead, he said "you who follow me, you give to the needs of others. Do this, not because the government makes you, but because of what God has done for you."

more than 4 years ago
top

New Method Could Hide Malware In PDFs, No Further Exploits Needed

rewt66 Tried to read the article (234 comments)

but it's a PDF...

more than 4 years ago
top

New Theory of Gravity Decouples Space & Time

rewt66 Re:Just wondering out loud... (575 comments)

Well, Einstein assumed that because of the null result of the Michaelson-Morley experiment. He didn't just guess it out of the blue...

more than 4 years ago

Submissions

top

Finally, the jury rules against SCO

rewt66 rewt66 writes  |  more than 4 years ago

rewt66 (738525) writes "SCO got the day in court that they've always claimed they wanted. And the jury ruled that the Unix copyrights did not transfer from Novell to SCO, so even if some SVRX code did get put in Linux (which I doubt), SCO doesn't own the copyrights to it."
Link to Original Source

Journals

rewt66 has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?