Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Archive.org should not respect robots.txt (Score 4, Insightful) 234

by Bardez (#45415837) Attached to: Britain's Conservatives Scrub Speeches from the Internet
Robots.txt should be respected at the time of retrieval. It should not be retroactively respected to censor or remove old data. That is a shame. I've used the Archive before on a site of a gaming company that I loved, which nearly went bankrupt (or perhaps did) but managed to eke its way through. Part of their relaunch nuked the Internet Archive's archives and I definitely felt a sense of loss.

Comment Character development (Score 2) 233

by Bardez (#45393911) Attached to: <em>Thor: The Dark World</em> &mdash; What Did You Think?
I liked Thor 2 better.

I found the character development with Thor 2 to be much more believable than that in Thor. In the first, he couldn't pick up his hammer and suddenly was humbled outright. In this, he slowly comes to realize that he cannot put his feelings for Earth (and Jane) aside and act as a ruler would, and must instead act as a guardian/soldier.

Comment Re:It tried to follow the plot (Score 1) 726

Having read this (for the first time) very recently, I was under the impression that what had occurred was that he got frustrated, as you noted; eye-balled the explosion radius; judged that one of his soldiers would have been clear from the blast and fired. Had he used his sensors, he would have found that the soldier was not clear, and he therefore took actions that could have resulted in death in real combat. He eyeballed something where a (simulated) nuclear explosion was involved, and he was wrong.

Comment Re:firing squads have one blank. (Score 2) 1160

Killing someone is cheaper than letting them rot for life in prison, feeding them, housing them, guarding them and perhaps even risking parole at some later date.

I do not pretend to weigh in on the morality or acceptability of capital punishment in this post, just the above economic view.

Comment The first half of #3 is Hearsay (Score 1) 871

by Bardez (#45063389) Attached to: Bennett Haselton's Response To That "Don't Talk to Cops" Video

3. His advice ignores the benefits of leniency if you're guilty and you're almost positive you'll be caught anyway. For most of this discussion I've been focusing on the merits of talking to the police if you're innocent. But Officer Bruch also says that if people in the interrogation room answer questions and cooperate, then even if they're ultimately convicted, the police do testify to the judge that you were cooperative, and the judge can take that into account and reduce your prison sentence. That is at least theoretically another legitimate reason to violate Professor Duane's "Don't Talk To Cops" rule, if you're 99% sure that the police will find enough evidence to convict you anyway, you can hope for leniency by cooperating. [...]

It is pointed out by Professor Duane that the police cannot testify in your favor because anything you say can and will be used against you, but not in your favor. All a prosecutor has to decry is "hearsay" and it is not valid for the court to consider.

Apparently one other poster caught on to this: here

Slashdot Top Deals

The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine

Close