Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Won't allow forwarding? (Score 1) 199 199

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) 574 574

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 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:Straw man? (Score 1) 202 202

In hindsight, the whole com, net, org idea was stupid to begin with.

It wasn't stupid, it was just wrong. They didn't think "which legal jurisdiction will apply?" would matter.

Keeping force impotent and jurisdiction irrelevant, will be on everyone's mind when whatever-comes-after-DNS is designed.

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

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) 139 139

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) 479 479

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.

Comment Re:It's not stealing. (Score 1) 408 408

It's not "how" it's "where". Copyright holders of movies want to sell at different prices in different countries.

Oh, I get that they want to do that. I want you to buy ten of my widgets instead of one of them. I want you to tell your friends that my widget is the awesomest. I want you to parade my widget around a bunch of rich people so they'll want a widget too.

But if you don't give a crap what I want, and simply hand me the money for a single widget and then you don't tell your friends or show it off to rich people, I'm just going to have to live with that damn money that you put into my hand. I might angrily stare at the wad of cash, resenting that we did business because life as a bum was just fine since I never had my unrealistic expectations crushed. I might talk shit about you, "danbob999 bought my widget! Waaaah!" But I'm the one people are going to be laughing at.

Comment Re:Good luck with that. (Score 1) 408 408

She owns the exclusive rights to a basket of content in Canada.

I think maybe what's going on here, is that she thought she was buying the exclusive rights to sell baskets, not realizing that the seller had made the exact same with an American.

Bell needs to contact the seller and ask for their money back. Exclusivity was promised but not provided. If the seller doesn't issue refund, take 'em to court. Netflix would make a good witness for their case.

Comment Interesting PR strategy, but will it work? (Score 1) 408 408

The problem: I work at K-Mart and some of the people who I thought would become my customers, are shopping smart. They're going to my competitor, S-Mart, who sells similar things for less money.

My solution: yell at the would-be customers, call them thieves. "It's not socially acceptable to drive over there."

There are two ways the public might react. One is "Cajun Hell is right, and so I am going to shop at K-Mart instead of stealing by buying from S-Mart." Unfortunately, the other one is "Cajun Hell is an entitled loon."

Which way do you think the public is going to take my announcement? Will it work, or should I try something slightly less fuckwitted?

It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river. -- Abraham Lincoln

Working...