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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re: Who? (Score 1) 556

Unless you've ever interacted with the cops you really have no reason to say anything about anything. Many people have this romantic idealized notion of the cops (or FBI) giving a f*ck when they usually do not.

One troll threatening another on the Internet is probably not enough to get them interested.

These people have important things to do and they have their careers to think about. They aren't going to waste their time chasing their tails over every random piece of bullsh*t. Sorry, but YOU and your problem are probably not important enough for them.

A threat against a school is probably something that they are more interested in. Better collar. More interesting media potential.

Comment Re:Media blackout (Score 1) 556

The "corruption" angle of this is far more pervasive than just games or game reviews. It was an interesting coincidence that a Jewish reporter in Israel was complaining about media corruption from a different angle when this story was being broken.

Her perspective was that inconvenient facts and stories are not published. Things that don't support the dogma that your editors want to push are suppressed. Reality doesn't matter. The media wants to push it's view of things and "the news" is really just a work of fiction. Anything that doesn't support the narrative they want to present is ignored.

I'm not sure if it's shared ideology driven by the state of journalism academia or if it's mainly more crass corporate considerations but there's a definite group think at work.

Professional journalism at this point can be at best described as a form of political propaganda.

Comment Re:Most Unbiased Slashdot Gamergate Article (Score 4, Insightful) 556

If you troll all of your customers, don't be surprised if you end up with a few wing nuts going off the deep end.

The "journalism" response to this entire affair has been shameless pandering to some notion of political correctness and shameless exploitation of the situation. That's been true pretty much across the entire media spectrum starting with the very first set of trolling click-bait articles generated by the gaming and tech press.

Anyone that disagrees is branded as some sort of anti-feminist misogynistic scum who's opinions don't matter.

It's a perfect example of the "liberal media" that tea baggers like to whine about. The dogma behind the narrative is more important than anything else.

Comment Re:Who? (Score 3, Insightful) 556

Being a victim requires actual harm. What actual harm does a threat from some chickenshit web troll really do you?

If anything, the so-called victims here are happily basking in the glow of the spotlight happy to be the center of attention.

The real victims are people that have bought into all of this nonsense and have had the view of their own real world warped by it. There's the real psychological harm.

Comment Re:Land of the free (Score 1) 580

Now start cleaning that gun and the picture changes. Now take the gun to a shooting range, and remove all the bullets when you take it home and put it on the table. What are the chances that you left a bullet? Now show your friends that there are no bullets. What are the chances that you fire a shot from a gun that you absolutely positively definitely knew had no bullets in it, and kill one of your friends?

So what you're taking great pains to say is that guns aren't inherently dangerous, people are. Because they kill themselves and each other all the time through careless acts. You've done nothing to show inherent danger in that hunk of metal, but you have shown an odd desire to absolve people of their own stupidity, shifting the blame to inanimate objects than cannot, by themselves, hurt you. It's a fundamentally irrational view of reality. Or, more likely, it's a thinly veiled agenda trying to hide behind a bit of fear mongering.

Comment Re:Land of the free (Score 1) 580

I don't think of guns as inherently evil, but they are inherently dangerous.

How? Be specific. If I put a gun on a table in front of you, it will sit there for a thousand years without hurting either one of us. Are you concerned it will spontaneously explode, or grow some sort of nerve tentacles that will intrude into your brain and make you do something awful? Why aren't you worried about kitchen knives, or hammers? More people are killed in the US with pipes and baseball bats than with any kind of rifle (semi-auto or otherwise) - are all cylindrical club-like objects inherently dangerous? How so?

People should treat guns with respect and always assume 1) that they are loaded (even if you JUST took all of the bullets out) and 2) that the gun is about to fire at whatever it is pointed at.

Yes, it's a good habit to treat every gun as if it might go off when you handle it. So you always handle them as if they will, and control that muzzle's direction at all times. Just like you always have to think about where you're swinging an axe, or pointing the front end of a moving car.

Comment Re:Should let them work inside parks. (Score 2) 68

Where is it in the constitution that flying a drone is a protected right?

Ah, another person who never went to school, or certainly wasn't paying attention.

Your rights are not defined in the constitution. The constitution exists to limit the government's power to interfere with your liberty. Some of those liberties are so important that they are also mentioned by name (the right to liberty that by definition includes the right to speak, assemble, protect yourself, etc). Only leftist idiots think that it's the government that grants you your rights. That's 100% Nanny State backwards. Please do not vote.

Comment Re:hooray for the government (Score 1) 68

UAVs are potentially an externality because they can do physical damage anonymously for the cost of the UAV.

Yeah, just like a brick thrown from an overpass or a 40th-floor window - and that costs a fraction of the price of a single UAV battery. Why aren't you in favor of banning bricks? Or would you be happy with simply registering, with photo ID and fingerprints on file, the ownership of all objects that have enough mass to be dangerous?

Comment Re:hooray for the government (Score 1) 68

Gun bans do work and work well.

Not really. Ask any of the dead people in Chicago, where despite very (and even unconstitutionally) severe restrictions, the local thuggery manages to shoot itself up quite regularly. On the other hand, you've got places where guns are readily available (legally) and routinely carried in cars and on person, and which have very low violent crime rates. It's not about guns, and it's never been about guns. It's about culture and law enforcement. Chicago has a violent subculture and no interest in dealing with it. The results are self-evident.

Comment Re:Land of the free (Score 1) 580

Mod parent up.

Imagine: hundreds of admitted terabytes go out the door, and no one notices. La dee dah, hey where's the coffee?

There's a bunch of PHBs that need to fall on their swords @ Sony. This has all the lulzsec hallmarks of some clever, but not brilliant artists.

And to those that aren't reeling, your assets might be next. It's not an attack against allies, it's a total, shameful embarrassment that's a wake-up call to read your damn logs and hack yourself. Terabytes and terabytes. TERABYTES!

Slashdot Top Deals

Heard that the next Space Shuttle is supposed to carry several Guernsey cows? It's gonna be the herd shot 'round the world.

Working...