Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The best summation I've seen (Score 1) 99

Users: "Please do not track us."

Companies: "I'm not tracking you; I'm providing you with a richer experience and helping to make you more aware of things about which you might have great interest."

Users: "Yeah, um, whatever. Don't do that."

Companies: "You don't understand. If you understood, you wouldn't ask me to stop helping you."

Users: "Nevertheless, I am asking you to stop."

Companies: "We are obviously having a communication problem here. Your asking me to stop means that you don't understand what you're asking. If you don't understand what you're asking, that means I'm not really getting your informed consent. And obviously, I won't block you from finding out about exciting opportunities, without your consent. Someone is trying to censor the information that you receive, and I hereby join you, the users, in resisting censorship!"

Comment Re:This problem really shouldn't exist. (Score 2) 262

What do you think a "Steeler" or a "Ram" or a "49er" is?

Talking about products is all those people ever do. This is commercial entertainment, not a real sports game between the people on your street. Go outside and play some sports. And then tell me if any of the other people you were with, said "ooh, ooh, can I be the announcer?" Sports don't have announcers.

This a field of professional entertainers and professional announcers whose job is to sell. They're paid to sell you the teams, the players, and whatever else the media outlet got paid to promote. If that includes Dodge or Microsoft, then their job is to sell you Dodge and Microsoft.

Comment You should still blame Obama (Score 1) 258

Do you think voting for any other candidate would have created a better outcome?

Maybe, maybe not; possibly. But even if a whole bunch of people are willing to commit a crime, it's good to prosecute (or at least talk shit about) the one who actually goes through with the dirty deed.

Don't let Republicrats off the hook for this, even if you think a third party president would have also pushed hard for it. If you're not willing to point the finger of blame, then you're not creating any incentive for anyone to ever try to avoid it, so why would someone else create a better outcome? Lay blame onto the specific names of people who are caught red-handed working against America's interests.

Obama isn't even pretending that he hasn't made this a priority agenda item. He really should take flak for that. Every current presidential candidate should be given a reason to speak out against TPP, even if it'll be too late by the time they're elected, and even if their campaign contributors would want them to work for TPP too. The current public debate should become "Look at what THEY are doing! I fucking swear I will not be that kind of president!" Because those people are (for very stupid reasons) in the media spotlight right now, so they will be heard and that's how you pressure the current Congress into voting against TPP.

Now is the time for everyone, of pretty much any right/left political persuasion, to become an Obama-basher over this specific issue. If you're not bashing Obama over this, you're part of the problem.

Just by framing this as an Obama thing rather than a generic corruption thing, you will get automatic thoughtless support from half of the Republicrat voters and media (the Republicans). You don't even have to argue the point or get them to think about the issue. You'll get it on Fox News. Then the "other" side might pick it up, wanting to have to take an adversarial position out of habit (and maybe they will, and maybe they won't). Next thing you know, mainstream people could be talking about it, and to TPP-advocates' horror, democracy could break out.

"TPP! Thanks, Obama!"

Just talking about it as though a corrupt politician, as long as their name isn't "Obama," might not have gotten bribed into doing this, could cause the silly assertion to become true.

Comment Re: Won't allow forwarding? (Score 1) 204

Of course, this is not fool-proof at all and can be circumvented by simply using older versions, or self-compiled versions lacking this "feature".

"Circumvent" is really an inappropriate word here. By default, all image processing software will "fail to fail" unless the programmer goes to extra trouble to add the defect. I wouldn't even know that I "should"(?) make my projects not work correctly if I hadn't stumbled onto this thread. And I wouldn't know off the top of my head how I would make it fail, though I suppose I could Google it, not that any customer has ever asked for the bug. And then even if I Google it, the chances that I might find as sufficiently easy-to-call library to help my code fail (or a sufficient description so that I can implement the bug myself), aren't that good. And who is going to pay for my time, working on it? Nobody, that's who.

Please don't call it "circumvent!" Not-having this "feature" is the normal, default, assumed, cheapest, fastest, easiest case.

Comment Re:Who? (Score 1) 574

Are people satisfied with poorer sound than they once were? I see people listening all the time on cheap earbuds.

I remember seeing plenty of people using cheap earbuds in the 1980s, so it's not like this is something that has changed recently, unless you're taking a really long view and going back far enough to where people couldn't (for technological bulk reasons) carry stuff around. And then before the Sony Walkman (and -likes), it wasn't all that uncommon to see mono somewhat-bulky portable tape player+radio things, and even mono single-earbud-like things.

In addition to the speakers not changing much in the last few decades, a lot of this streaming is replacing radio, so even given theoretically perfect speakers, the quality has upgraded or sidegraded. Maybe you can hear mp3 artifacts, but it's not like FM (or AM!) didn't impose loss too.

Yes, it's not as good as your good speakers playing from a CD player in 1988 or LP in 1968, but lots of people are doing that sort of thing in 2015 too. Pick a decade and you've got the living room people and the walkin'-around people, unless you go so far back that people couldn't listen to music while walking around unless they had harmonicas in their pockets.

Comment DRM!!!1 (Score 1) 74

Of course there will be protests. So many people are using software at home to manipulate their genes as 2-bit values. This is basically DRM, or at least until people go back and fix all their code, which might even be technically illegal for them to do. Fuck that! We need to take to the streets, now!

Comment Re:OAPI is a Scam (Score 0) 202

0) All calls should be treated as suspicious and First Responders should not rush into situations guns drawn.

Problem solved. Because initiating a swatting, as despicable as it is, isn't nearly as bad of a problem as society keeping around a powerful weapon that can be used against anyone without the slightest amount of human judgement entering into the picture.

Swatting should never work; it should have a 100% failure rate. Any time it does work (either injury/death or property destruction), it should be followed by multiple cops being fired, civilly sued, and criminally prosecuted. Any time swatting works, cops have made an extreme error, showing themselves to be completely untrustworthy, and incapable of acting as cops. That is independent of the scumbag who made the false report. (They suck too, but the bug they're exploiting sucks even more.)

Comment Re:Monitoring prevented this planned attack (Score 1) 139

I'm glad someone reported the Facebook item to the FBI.

What's really odd and exceptional about that situation, is that they did it without the government sticking a gun in their face and saying "I dare you to not report that. Make my day, you piece of shit citizen." It's almost as though they wanted to report what they had noticed.

Oh wait, that's not odd or exceptional at all. I almost think it's human nature that, when you stick a gun in someone's face, it just makes people treat you as less of an ally with whom you would want to share information.

Then there's the robotically-thoughtless ass-covering. Someone greets their friend Jack at the airport, "Hi, Jack!" Someone sees a circuit board somewhere in public and doesn't know what it's for. Someone notices a pressure cooker in the back seat of a parked car. Someone posts a vague tweet that could be about anything. Guess what stupid thing some stupid person has to do. "I have to ruin everyone's day." And we're going to have a new law to make more of this nonsense.

I wonder if these Senators have thought about why they write laws and what outcomes they are hoping to achieve. I hope all their re-election campaigns get shot down. Oh shit, I said "shot" in a Senators context. You'd have to report me, because the law will be that you have act stupid even if you're secretly not stupid.

Keep the secret! Let's all work on repeating our 21st century mantra: Duuuh. Duuuh. Duuuh. Duuuh. Never let anyone in public know that you can say anything else. Save your other words for the cell meetings.

Comment Re:Science precludes God and demands evolution? (Score 3, Insightful) 479

everyone talking about science believes creationism is wrong because God hasn't been scientifically observed, falsely concluding that this disproves his existence rather than fails to demonstrate it experimentally.

And by "everyone" concluding that, you mean nobody.

Did the billions of galaxies out there fail to exist 1000 or 2000 years ago because we didn't have the technology or know-how to observe them? Because that is what Nye and this article imply. The unobserved does not exist.

No, what it means is that anyone who talked about billions of galaxies 1000 years ago, was talking out of their ass, and making up crazy shit. Nobody knew there were billions of galaxies nor had reason to suspect there were billions of galaxies. And if by amazing chance, someone back then said there are billions of galaxies, they were being either stupid or dishonest (or both). Even if they just happened to be correct, I guarantee that their arguments for saying that, were no less stupid and no less deceitful, than their neighbor who talked about the world being carried by Great A'Tuin.

Yes, a god could exist, but we have no reason to think it might, and no reason to think we know what it's like, or what its name is, or how many there are, or how big or fast or smart they are, whether or not they love or hate gays, etc. But mystics just pile the bullshit on top of bullshit, in an enormous pile, ignoring that even the first piece stunk. It's no less crazy than talking about unicorns, and saying it's wrong is no crazier than saying someone's ideas about the existence of unicorns is wrong.

Pick a card, any card, but don't say it out loud.

I know what card you picked. You picked the three of hearts.

Was I right? There's a 1/52 chance I was right, but a 52/52 chance that I was fucking lying. The truth is that I didn't have the faintest idea what card you would pick, and if you listen to my bullshit about how I know what cards people will pick, you are not on the path to learning anything, except maybe about how good I am at slinging bullshit. After all my bullshit, you still won't know anything more about cards or how to predict what card people will choose. It is empty of knowledge.

A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you. -- Ramsey Clark