Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Guess they overestimated some. (Score 2) 131

if they're ready for a Zombie apocalypse, it stands to reason that they're ready for more realistic variations on the theme.

Sure we may be ready for a zombie apocalypse, but are we prepared for the poor plotting, derivative story-line, cheap jump-scares, wooden acting, gratuitous sex scenes, and corny self-referential jokes of the inevitable sequel?

Comment Re:You are missing the point (Score 1) 370

This is a decision that will affect any search engine, any index, anyone who offers links to publicly available material or provides any sort of aggregation service.

I don't get how this will work. Will these rulings affect google's results in the US? Surely google.com can legally index an article in an EU newspaper. So can the EU then subsequently force google to remove this data from their server in the US? If so, it seems as if the EU is limiting information flow between a US company and US citizens (under the threat that the US company will be punished in the EU if it does not comply). This seems rather peculiar. Yet if this isn't how it works, then anyone in the EU could just visit google.com instead of their local google, thus rendering the whole system moot.

Comment Re:Mario Costeja González (Score 1) 199

The EU does cherish freedom of speech. But it also cherishes the privacy of the individual.

The US - based on comments on this site - appears to have decided that freedom of speech trumps everything else. You can lie, cheat, shout fire in a crowded theatre, call in fake bomb scares, basically anything at all because it's all "freedom of speech."

The EU takes a much more nuanced view.

This is a canard. Nobody in his right mind, even on this site, contends that free speech ought to allow one to break laws. Punching someone in the face is undoubtedly a form of speech, insofar as it communicates a message, but one cannot defend such an assault on free speech grounds. Likewise with insider trading and any other crime involving speech.

You appear to be framing the difference between the two approaches as one of Yosemite Sam on the one side, speechifying willy nilly without regard for the baleful consequences of his indiscretions, and on the other, the pasty-faced egghead Parisian intellectual in his black beret and turtleneck, heaving a weary sigh at the rusticated antics of his Yankee cousin, whilst making a few minor tweaks to the law in the interests of the basic human decency that so delights the heart of the European, but so quickly withers away in the harsh frontier conditions of the New World. You might bring some of that famed European nuance to bear on the question and consider whether this cartoonish interpretation does anything more than flatter your own ego.

Comment Re:Does it really matter? (Score 1) 203

Presumably they are looking to see the curvature of the earth and the stars set against a black background. If I saw that, I'd feel like I went to space, even if technically I did not.

The airline could even capitalize on this by awarding certificates to passengers afterward proclaiming that they remain Official Space Virgins.

Comment Re:Ban them all you want (Score 1) 180

What will happen is that the defense contractors will develop autonomous less-lethal robots that can scout, identify targets, and engage with less lethal weapons. But you know... for flexibility purposes... we'll just make sure the weapon hardpoints are as modular as possible. Hey! I know! We'll make them be adaptable to any standard infantry fir... errrrr, less-lethal weapon.

They'll just install a remote attack-authorization button so the thing isn't technically autonomous, and then someone at Quantico will put his coffee cup on top of the button. Problem solved.

Slashdot Top Deals

Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only specification is that it should run noiselessly.

Working...