Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Extra Credits (Score 1) 99

by Areyoukiddingme (#48638925) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Resources For Kids Who Want To Make Games?

I second Extra Credits. They provide a lot of good analysis and breakdowns of why some games work well, and how others could be made to work better.

Sounds like Lum the Mad, except in annoying video format.

A shame that site is gone... Turns out Lum can't design very well himself, but he's a good analyst and critic.

Comment: Re:Land of the free (Score 1) 566

by Areyoukiddingme (#48629883) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

Really? His nice, lazy, all-afternoon hunting down of young people on that island couldn't have ended with fewer deaths if someone on that island had shot him down in self defense before he committed such methodical, unopposed slaughter?

His lazy all-afternoon hunting down of young people could have been ended with fewer deaths if Norwegian youth had ever heard the phrase: run from a knife, charge a gun. No one else needed to be armed to have stopped him far short of the 70-odd deaths he caused. They just didn't know how.

Comment: Re:I'd expect Fawkes masks to start making stateme (Score 1) 192

You know, if something works for 60-80 years, maybe it's worth dropping the "unsustainable" tag.

While you're at it, I'd say, given how much less the per capita debt of the nations in question have risen compared to American debt (presumably the bastion of the "free Market" the AC was referring to), maybe it's worth dropping the "cost" tag too.

But really, you shouldn't be responding to the obviously deranged. Arbitrary capitalization of words, arbitrary scare quotes everywhere, and spamming all caps words? Deranged.

Comment: Re:Why is it there? (Score 1) 174

by Areyoukiddingme (#48622857) Attached to: Researchers Accidentally Discover How To Turn Off Skin Aging Gene

It did not need to increase our chances of survival because, evolution only cares about getting us to reproductive maturity.

Well yes, but humans have a long maturation period. Getting us to reproductive maturity necessitates keeping our parents alive as well, not just us. A human with at least one parent who survives 15 years after its birth has a decided evolutionary advantage over a human with no parent surviving a year after birth. A human with two present parents surviving at least 20 years after birth has an even bigger advantage. A human with two present parents surviving at least 20 years after birth plus at least one grandparent surviving at least 20 years after birth has the biggest advantage evolution has yet found.

Characteristics from the human lifespan to human sex drive can be explained in these evolutionary terms. Humans live approximately 60 years in good health, which is their own maturation period plus the maturation period of one offspring, plus the maturation period of that offspring's offspring. The male human sex drive and the female's ability to accommodate him year round (extremely rare in mammals) have been described as the evolutionary mechanism that ensures not just two surviving parents, but the presence of two surviving parents.

Evolution may not care if you get ugly after your 20s, but evolution does care if you contract cancer and die at 35. It's a disadvantage to your offspring.

(Pedants who want to complain about us anthropomorphizing evolution are invited to take a long walk off a short pier. It's shorthand.)

Comment: Re:Did anyone watch the video? (Score 1) 515

by Areyoukiddingme (#48613307) Attached to: Once Again, Baltimore Police Arrest a Person For Recording Them

Good post! I agree wholeheartedly. How the hell do you "+1" on Slashdot, or is it only editors that can do it?

You have a six digit user ID and you don't know how the moderation system works?

Probably because the best you can do is agree with a post claiming that because we don't have a video of the cop deleting the video, he must not have deleted it. Really? And he can't even spell "alleges" right.

You eventually get moderator points if your own posts get modded up. If you fail to contribute to the conversation, you don't get to affect the moderation of those who do.

Comment: Re:The Pirate Bay (Score 4, Interesting) 302

by Areyoukiddingme (#48606525) Attached to: The Pirate Bay Responds To Raid

You make it sound like you have a fundamental right to content someone else produces. You don't.

Yes I do.

It's called culture. Humans have been producing it for thousands of years. Claiming it is some sort of property that can be owned is a legal fiction created only in the last few hundred. The vast majority of consumers of culture throughout history and pre-history did not pay for their consumption. If authors got paid at all, they got paid once, by their patron, and forever after the cost of spreading the media was the marginal cost of duplication, and the cost of consumption was zero.

Comment: Re:It's difficult but (Score 2) 199

by Areyoukiddingme (#48606421) Attached to: Linking Drought and Climate Change: Difficult To Do

Hurricanes happen in the northern hemisphere, usually golf of Mexico and north of it.

Tropical cyclones form an average of 6.3 times per year in the northern Indian Ocean (crosses the equater), 14.3 times per year in the south-western Indian Ocean (southern hemisphere), 11.0 times per year in the Australian region, and 11.4 times per year in the southern Pacific. Of those storms, an average of 1.5, 5.0, 0, and 4, respectively, per year achieve hurricane strength. Only an average of 13.6% of hurricane strength tropical cyclones form in the North Atlantic.

If you want to talk about storms in the US and around you should focus on Tornados anyway.

The frequency of tornadoes in North America is the lowest it's been in recorded history for the three year period running up to the present day. Discussed on Slashdot yesterday.

So, why do I complain? Because you bring in El Nina and El Nino "years" or "phenomena" ... which are phenomena limited to the southern hemisphere like Peru, Chile, Brazil, Argentina and the south Atlantic ... they have absolutely no influence on hurricanes or the weather in the US.

Changes caused by El Niño-Southern Oscillation

So much to your +5 Informative

Everything you said was either useless or wrong. Which is why he's modded +5 and you're at 1.

Comment: Re:Fucking Hell, Harper needs to go! (Score 1) 122

by Areyoukiddingme (#48596535) Attached to: Canada Waives Own Rules, Helps Microsoft Avoid US Visa Problems

When people get their panties in a twist about how much "wealth" the Walton family has it just shows they don't understand what wealth is.

Their "wealth" is paper. They could be worth X millions one day and X - a butt load of money the next. It has no impact on how much they can spend at lunch or whether they get the premium cable package or the standard. It's not cash.

On the contrary, it is very definitely cash. Walmart Corporation pays dividends to the tune of $0.48 per share every quarter for the past four quarters. Walmart has raised their dividend every year for the past 41 years. That amounts to $3.1 billion in cash paid to the Waltons this year. The Walton family still controls a simple majority of the company, owning more than 50% of the 3.223 billion shares outstanding.

That's cash money. No loan, no promissory note, no sale of shares. Of course the Waltons have built an edifice of fictional corporate entities to hold their stock that exists mainly for the purpose of avoiding taxes, so it's not like there's a single bank account that goes cha-ching +$775 million every quarter, but the difference is only significant to the tax man and the lawyers.

You don't understand what wealth is. It's ownership. And ownership PAYS. And pays and pays and pays.

Comment: Re: Pay with the pension fund! (Score 1) 515

by Areyoukiddingme (#48591205) Attached to: Once Again, Baltimore Police Arrest a Person For Recording Them

Thanks for being prejudiced against us military folks.

It has nothing to do with prejudice. It has to do with two very different, very stressful jobs, with very different training. Or are you going to try to claim that infantry procedures are appropriate for civilian law enforcement? Are you one of these people who thinks the county sheriff needs an MRAP? Or a Stryker, perhaps?

Your support is appreciated.

Ten years of my professional career writing software for the US military, some of which is currently in use by the Navy, Marines, Air Force, Army, and Coast Guard, in roughly descending order of frequency. Yes, all five services. I've done more to "support our troops" than half of these assholes with US flag bumper stickers on their cars.

You're welcome.

Comment: Re:This really is a man's world... (Score 1) 377

by Areyoukiddingme (#48588147) Attached to: Bellard Creates New Image Format To Replace JPEG

Nope, because everyone knows it came from Playboy.

Uh, I didn't. Not until this thread, though I've seen that image before.

No, it's not in the least like blood diamonds or poaching endangered species. No one was enslaved, no creature was killed to produce that image. No population was oppressed, no species went extinct to produce that image.

Depictions of naked people, in whatever medium, do not automatically objectify all members of the person's sex. Nor does it automatically objectify the person depicted. In fact, depictions of naked people that were created specifically to elicit a sexual response still don't automatically objectify the person depicted or members of the person's sex. Whether or not a painting or photograph or sculpture or video objectifies the subject is entirely orthogonal to whether or not the subject is clothed. This is proven by the fact it is possible to objectify clothed people.

The entire American movie genre called 'horror' objectifies people, nearly all of whom are clothed. That is, in fact, a large part of what makes such movies horrifying. Photos of Nazi concentration camps objectify people. That is, in fact, a large part of what makes Nazi concentration camps horrifying.

Conversely, Playboy does not ever objectify women. The women in Playboy photos nearly always have visible faces, and are frequently looking directly at the camera. They are always in fine health, uninjured, unrestrained, and are exemplars of female human beauty. The poses (and photo retouching) used display their bodies to the best possible advantage. The poses are frequently dominant in nature, such as on top of the backs of furniture like sofas and chairs, on top of tables, on top of vehicles, and especially at the top of staircases. You will notice the preponderance of the phrase "on top"—the dominant position among all mammals, including all primates.

The uncropped photograph of Lena fits the mould precisely. There's a link to it a few posts down. I just looked at it for the first time, and it fits every single point above: she is standing (dominant), resting one knee on top of an old piece of luggage (dominant), obviously in fine health, and beautiful. Her face is visible, obviously, and she's looking directly at the camera. I am reminded of another aspect of typical Playboy photography. Articles of clothing, while not concealing her sexual attributes, are often chosen for dominance. She's wearing black leather boots with heavy heels.

In short, Playboy photos are the polar opposite of objectifying: Playboy models are depicted in positions of power, with many of the trappings thereof. Baring their sexual characteristics for a camera is an expression of their power—Playboy models are comfortable in their own skin. Comfortable and more than comfortable. Judging by the expressions on their faces, they know they are beautiful, they know they are sexually attractive, and they like being both.

Just because some lunatic social engineers say naked people are automatically objectified doesn't make it so. When you get right down to it, most objections to depictions of naked people are thinly disguised Puritanism, nothing more.

Is it possible for a depiction of a naked person to objectify the person or people of their sex? Certainly. Modern sexually explicit depictions objectify the men far more often than the women, when both are together. The pictures and videos have her name on them. They seldom have his. She makes most of the money. He doesn't. She often speaks. He doesn't. Her face is always visible. His isn't. The camera frames her, not him. He rarely looks at the camera. She often does. The poses he is required to assume are often awkward and physically painful to hold for any length of time. Hers can be as well, but not as often. He is there to showcase her. He is an accessory, a piece of furniture with a penis. Even the much-maligned cumshot is evidence of her sexual prowess, not his. She made him orgasm under stressful conditions, and give up his genetic material. This is no mean feat, as sales of Viagra indicate. Inability to achieve or maintain an erection is most often evidence of emotional distress on his part, not a physical dysfunction, or Viagra wouldn't work. Viagra forces performance, despite his distress.

If you insist on shedding a tear over objectification of humans in porn, shed it for the male of the species, not the female.

Comment: Re:Here's an idea (Score 1) 515

by Areyoukiddingme (#48587467) Attached to: Once Again, Baltimore Police Arrest a Person For Recording Them

Well, you will need to get a grand jury to indict such misbehaving officers first, and that crucial step in the process has not been going so well recently.

I would like to see an investigation of the grand jury selection process. Is our society really so sick that killing-while-in-uniform is always a free pass or have D.A.s managed to rig grand jury selection? Is there a list? "Summon this pool of potential jurists if the thug cop needs to go free." Or is it a skill? Not all of society is so sick, but a large enough percentage have reliable Fascism and Safety At Any Cost pushbuttons that a jury can be effectively rigged during the selection process based on their responses to questions?

It certainly seems like some mechanism is in place, and has been for several decades.

Comment: Re:Pay with the pension fund! (Score 1) 515

by Areyoukiddingme (#48587427) Attached to: Once Again, Baltimore Police Arrest a Person For Recording Them

Many of them were soldiers who enlisted, had a gun put in their hand at 18 years old, and taught to kill other people. It's easy to see how cops can become jaded and not give a crap about rights.

This is a big part of the problem, if not the problem. Police are not military personnel, and this habit of hiring ex-military people as cops is exactly the wrong choice. Military are trained a certain way. What is emphasized in military training is diametrically opposed to good policing. Completely the polar opposite. Even military police training is completely inappropriate for civilian application. Just because both jobs involve guns, people think they're the same. Ex-military gets you a bonus in the hiring score. It should be an automatic disqualification, since the retraining is extremely difficult, if not impossible, especially for ex-military who were deployed as combat troops. Unacknowledged PTSD alone is good enough reason to disqualify, never mind the training issues.

Comment: Re:Praise the lord (Score 1) 232

by Areyoukiddingme (#48587349) Attached to: Ford Ditches Microsoft Partnership On Sync, Goes With QNX

When most women look at a car all they see is a box. Just buy any car you want and some Ford badges.

The wife may or may not notice that trick. The extended family is guaranteed to not only notice, but crucify you for it. You don't seem to have contact with actual rabid motor vehicle fans. Rabid is an entirely appropriate adjective: they foam at the mouth. The word 'fan' was derived from is entirely accurate: fanatic. Rebadging a car is grounds not just for divorce but for poisoning your dog and SWATing your house. (If it's one of the Evil Brands. If it's just one of the Bad Brands, they might settle for divorce and salting your lawn.)

Don't cross these people. It's not safe.

Comment: Chancellor Merkel is right. (Score 1) 55

by Areyoukiddingme (#48538987) Attached to: EU May Not Unify Its Data Protection Rules After All

Chancellor Merkel is right: the Internet works best when predictable quality standards are available.

Chancellor Merkel is very carefully wrong. Predictable quality standards are orthogonal to net neutrality, but most people don't know that, so she gets away with claiming net neutrality conflicts with quality.

We'll take the quality standards. Codify uptime, packet loss, and latency requirements for residential Internet service. The providers are perfectly capable of achieving reasonable requirements in all of those categories. They will fight tooth and nail to avoid having any regulation of those categories though, because they want the option to let poor/low density/undesirable service areas go begging. An option they exercise daily right now.

Of course, they will never voluntarily offer such guarantees, at any price, so the market will never be able to express a desire to have those guarantees by choosing them. And of course, they will never be forced by law to provide those guarantees either, because they have money. Lots of money. Which is speech. And so the world turns, and what eventually gets passed into law with the name of Net Neutrality stamped on it will be the polar opposite of net neutrality, as these things always are.

I would say enjoy your free and open Internet while it lasts, but it's already too late for that for many of us.

Physician: One upon whom we set our hopes when ill and our dogs when well. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...