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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Really Blizzard? REALLY? (Score 1) 147

You don't like PvP? Don't participate.

In past Diablo games is that that choice was not left up to you, it was left up to the other players in the same game as you. I once heard someone lament there should be a force PvE option similar to the force PvP button because "if the griefers can force me to play their game I should be able to force them to play mine."

Comment Re:no (Score 1) 637

The Kalahari bushman's survival is therefore a function of the effectiveness of the safety net present in the system, not his innate abilities. There is a decent chance he'd steal, get the cops called on him and get shot when waving a fucking big knife around to try to scare the cops away, because that's the 'primitive' (ie effective in that situation) approach.

(There is no safety net for rk in the Kalahari. He's plain dead from not knowing how or what to eat. Or he got predated upon)

Comment It's always a conspiracy. (Score 1) 398

Okay. Voting machines with a miscalibrated screen, coupled with a dumb user interface that causes wrong choices to be made and doesn't allow the voters to be certain what they voted for.

Scroll to comments.

That’s why the Marxist-in-Chief will be re-selected.

*facepalm*

OF COURSE it's a frigging Obama conspiracy! I mean, Obama did Hurricane Sandy, messing with a few voting machines is easy in comparison, right? Duh.

Seriously, though, this is kind of like an inverse of the common-sense conclusion. Normally, one flaw is a glitch, two is a conspiracy. In voting machines, one election with screwy results is enough to suggest a conspiracy, but when all elections that use voting machines have more or less screwy results, maybe that suggests that the technology just isn't there yet.

Comment Re:Huffington Post (Score 0) 238

I wonder what sea water flooding implies for the financial district.

1. A brisk day of trading in derivatives based on underwater mortgages.

2. A vindication of the Saltwater school of economics.

3. People who thought studying Economics is nothing but underwater basket-weaving thought "damn, I wish I had actually studied underwater basket-weaving instead".

Comment Re:If it ain't broken... (Score 1) 160

It is still alive in Norway (and I guess a lot of countries) as well.

In what form? According to Wikipedia analogue TV was turned off in Norway in 2009.

The DVB standard, which is used in digital broadcasting almost everywhere except North America, still supports teletext. It's just that some of the most commonly used features, like subtitles, have made their way into separate features.

Comment Why do people mess with the licence? (Score 1) 151

So the font itself is under Creative Commons Attribution. Not bad. But then:

The only way you'll make me unhappy is if you charge others for the font itself. That is all.

...in other words, it's simultaneously just an Attribution license, with a tacked-on Non-Commercial clause aside of the common CC licence.

It's not a standard licence, which adds another layer of complications. And because it has a commercial distribution prohibition, it's definitely not an "open source" project.

If you use Creative Commons licenses, go with the strictest license that describes your project to avoid unnecessary confusion. If you have a non-commercial clause, use the NC variants of licenses! Because nothing infuriates people more than seeing "it's under CC licence with no NC clause, cool" and then discovering that the actual license does prohibit commercial use to some extent.

Comment Re:Child exploitation (Score 1) 580

Presumably the police who investigate these things need special dispensation to even collect evidence.

Even more interesting case - the people who police search engines and sites like 4chan. They get notified that someone has marked something inappropriate, so they can't even claim they downloaded it accidentally.

Comment Re:Child exploitation (Score 1) 580

Child rapists and killers don't start out as full fledged predators, they start out by fantasising, then they start collecting child porn because fantasizing is not enough, when even the porn doesn't do it any more they start raping kids or kidnapping and torturing them and very often they then kill them to hide their offence.

I want to drive a Lamborghini. Doesn't mean I'm willing to steal one, but "Greatest Police Chases 142: Exotic Cars" might pique my interest.

What does the above suggest about anyone who consumes your run of the mill hardcore porn? That they're all closet rapists and murderers just waiting for the right time to strike, who just happen not to have an under-18 fetish? Unlikely. What makes some significant portion (all?) of one group the cold blooded animals you speak of and the other Joe Six-pack?

Substitute in some other fetish. Are all the people who enjoy that fetish acting out their fantasies or forcing them upon others? The character Lawrence in the movie Office Space wanted to do "two chicks at the same time". Know anyone like that? Have they had such an encounter yet? If not, have they kidnapped two women yet?

Comment Re:Child exploitation (Score 3, Interesting) 580

So if I am in possession of a Stinger missile and am nicked for the illegal possession of dangerous weapons that is a ridiculous thing to do? If I am in possession of large quantities of sarin gas It's ridiculous to arrest me and charge me for possession of dangerous chemical weapons?

Your examples are not analogous. The missiles and the sarin gas allow you to cause harm to others at some point in the future. With the porn you're talking about evidence of abuse (ignoring the sexting, etc... cases) that has already occurred. It'd be like arresting someone for having pictures of the results of your stinger missile or sarin gas attack. Not something most of us care to see, but it's not obvious how additional harm is being caused by the pictures.

It's actually kind of ironic if you think of it in the bigger crime context. How much easier would most crimes be to prosecute if pictures of them were readily available, yet here we have a case where possession/dissemination of evidence that a crime was committed is itself illegal. The law basically "If you're going to abuse children keep it quiet."

if making possession of such material illegal gives police leverage then need to force me to tell them who supplied it or even to force my cooperation in stinging the perpetrators?

If the person giving you such material is dumb enough to give you any information that can lead back to him, the police don't need your help. And besides, Obstruction of Justice is a crime itself.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra

Working...