Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: A fool and their money (Score 1) 155

My father-in-law believed he could "witch" wires, pipes, or whatever, using two pieces of copper wire. Funny thing is, he could never repeat a witching while blindfolded. We figured that decades in the construction industry meant that he could subconsciously spot the clues where a typical pipeline would be run.

If I were planning where to run tile in a field, I'd look for the low spot, and the easiest, straightest run from there to a drainage ditch. Doesn't take beechwood sticks or copper wires to figure that out.

+ - How Big Telecom Smothers Municipal Broadband

Submitted by Rick Zeman
Rick Zeman (15628) writes "The Center for Public Integrity has a comprehensive article showing how Big Telecom (aka, AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Time Warner) use lobbyists, paid-for politicians, and lawsuits (both actual and the threat thereof) in their efforts to kill municipal broadband. From the article: "The companies have also used traditional campaign tactics such as newspaper ads, push polls, direct mail and door-to-door canvassing to block municipal networks. And they’ve tried to undermine the appetite for municipal broadband by paying for research from think tanks and front groups to portray the networks as unreliable and costly. " Unfortunately, those think tanks and front groups are also paid for by the companies."

Comment: Re:Slashdot comments indicative of the problem (Score 1) 1028

If this were a courtroom, she would be the plaintiff (because she's the one making an accusation of harassment), and thus would be required to provide the supporting documentation that gives her claimed evidence credibility.

No, that's not how it works. In a courtroom, the balance of the evidence is not slanted to any special requirement of "proof", just "preponderance". And a screen shot of harassment is evidence that could be sufficient for a "win".

Unless the defense can cast a reasonable doubt on the veracity of said evidence, which IMO has happened with this case. Somebody created an account just to harass a person whose honesty has come into question before, and they just so happened to do it less than 5 minutes before someone who wasn't logged in and didn't do an actual search somehow found the user page? For me, that's enough to say that the "evidence" presented is not strong enough for a conviction, and would require supplemental exhibits.

OK, so what's your banking access information? What, don't you trust me (and the rest of the Slashdot community)?

Trust all the time isn't the same as trust everyone all the time.

When your argument predicates social interaction on generic "trust," that very much is what you're saying.

Do you also trust that the voting machine you use hasn't been tampered with, or is there that nagging little thought in the back of your head that something could have been rigged?

There has never been a voting machine type that hasn't been tampered with, even paper and pen methods. Do "trust until proven otherwise" wouldn't apply, as "proven otherwise" has been met.

OK, so the woman in question has been called out previously for making dubious and outright dishonest statements.

Also, the men who trusted Jeffrey Dahmer died before (or rather, as) he could prove himself otherwise.

  "Don't assume to know a man's heart until you've walked a mile in his shoes."

Obviously, and contrary to what is apparently popular opinion on Slashdot, trust is not a binary decision.

But it is. You either do it or you don't. How do you 37.5% trust your chair to not break when you sit in it? Find a weight exactly 37.5% of your weight and place it on the chair to test it before sitting down?

You realize you just contradicted yourself here, right? If trust is a binary decision, than the statement "Trust all the time isn't the same as trust everyone all the time." would be invalid, since it implies degrees of trust rather than a "yes/no" configuration.

Comment: Re:Slashdot comments indicative of the problem (Score 1) 1028

Do you trust me? Why should you?

There are levels of trust,

Well at least you accept that. Now we just have to work out the details.

but you've given me no reason to distrust you on certain things.

Equally, I've given you no reason to trust me. I could be a pathological liar, or I could be incapable of dishonesty. You have no way of knowing for sure. So wouldn't it make more sense to default to the side of caution and assume that I am not particularly trustworthy?

Do you pick up hitch-hikers? Why not, don't you trust them?

Say if you were in Second Life and you IM'd me and said, "Hey can I borrow 100L$ for a few uploads until I can get my payment situation worked out. I'd hand you 100L$.

And if I was a person on the street you'd never met before, and I asked you the same question (but with Dollars, obviously), would you be so readily willing to trust that I'm not going to steal that money?

Or maybe I offered to sell you something on Craigslist, and have you come meet me at a place of my choosing. Would you think it a bad idea to assume that there's a chance I have ill intent? Because people get robbed/murdered in similar scams quite often these days.

Ever played Rust? There's a valid allegory there.

Nope, console gamer, so none of those Zombies meets survival games...yet.

Well, the concept is that you start the game naked with nothing but a rock, and when you get killed you lose all your gear and have to start over. I haven't played either, but apparently the people who do have developed a culture that many are saying is inherently sociopathic - activities like torture, backstabbing, and senseless murder are the norm rather than the outliers.

But...in those games, wouldn't cooperating with others and forming communities together make the group so strong that the zombies wouldn't be a threat?

Yes.

Yet, that's not how the majority of people choose to play. Sure, you'll get your little enclaves of people who are Steam friends or some such, but generally speaking, on a server where no-one knows anyone, it's essentially a murderous free-for-all. To me that says something about human nature... something most people would probably prefer to assume doesn't happen.

Say you walk up to my door with a minor injury...I don't need to hand you my keys, I can say "Hey dude, need me to call someone or do you need a ride?"

Sounds like a good way to get murdered... or raped then murdered, if you're a woman. You may think that's ridiculous, but people gaining unauthorized access by feigning need is far from unheard of.

I would handle that situation by offering to call an ambulance, or at the very least having a buddy help me "stabilize the patient" while I dressed the wound.

Comment: Re:Slashdot comments indicative of the problem (Score 1) 1028

Can't a person just not trust anyone by default without being accused of racism, or misogyny, etc?

You're lucky you're not being accused of being a sociopath.

This time, lol.

Trust is the very center of society and civilization. If you can't trust, you're not going to be very good at getting along in society.

OK, so go ahead and post your banking access information in response, you know, since "Trust is the very center of society and civilization."

Comment: Re:Slashdot comments indicative of the problem (Score 1) 1028

No, we've been over this.

You're really a hypocrite. You don't recall the "calling you a stupid shit on virtue of making stupid arguments" and you being a petulant asshole pretending that was an ad hominem. Then immediately, in the very next post you made, doing the same thing regarding Jeff Bezos.

Yea, because I'm not an obsessive little prick. See, some people have more going on in their lives than what they post on Slashdot, so we tend to not bother remembering unimportant comments we made on unimportant subjects to unimportant people.

That you have double standards of that degree

Coming from you, that's really funny. Enjoy your fantasy world where you're infallible and anyone who disagrees with your holy edicts are just dumb chumps. Me, I've got more important things to do.

Comment: Re:*Dons asbestos suit* (Score 1) 1028

Number one, there's nothing "epic" about my post.

Number two, you apparently parsed it wrong. But I'll cut you some slack, since sarcasm can be hard to infer in text posts.

Number three, upon consideration of the evidence (screenshot) presented, I now find the initial claim dubious, and have since retracted my earlier stance on the matter.

Comment: Re:Slashdot comments indicative of the problem (Score 1) 1028

Isn't it also "genuine sexism" to assume she's not lying?

She's provided evidence of harassment.

No, she's providing a claim of harassment, but as has been pointed out by others, she has also been caught misrepresenting herself in the past, and the details of this new "evidence" appear to take credibility away from her claims, rather than enforce them (namely how, in the screenshot, you can see it was taken by a user not logged in, and that the account in question was created less than 5 minutes before the screenshot was taken).

If this were a courtroom, she would be the plaintiff (because she's the one making an accusation of harassment), and thus would be required to provide the supporting documentation that gives her claimed evidence credibility.

Those accusing her of lying haven't provided proof of lying.

They don't have to - burden of proof goes to the accuser, and as mentioned earlier, she is the one who is actually making an accusation here.

The win goes to the side with evidence, even if weak.

I prefer a system where the evidence is thoroughly investigated, especially if it's weak, rather than just defaulting judgement to whoever makes the most convincing case but can't actually prove their claims.

Personally, I don't trust her, not because she's a woman or anything stupid like that, but rather because I don't trust anyone I don't personally know.

If that were true, then you'd never leave your house.

Why do people assume complete trust is required for social interaction?

Assuming everyone is a violent murderer until you "know" them would be debilitating,

Yes, it would be.

and that's the natural consequence of your assertion.

No, it's not.

I trust all the time.

OK, so what's your banking access information? What, don't you trust me (and the rest of the Slashdot community)?

I trust the guy in traffic to not deliberately ram me.

Do you really? You assume he's not going to, because he's not driving like that's his intention. But say the guy in traffic is driving erratically, swerving between lanes, and being belligerent. Do you trust him to not do anything that could damage your vehicle and/or harm you?

Or do you temper your trust based on the circumstances at hand?

I trust the ATM to not give me $100 and deduct $1000 from my account.

Do you also trust that the voting machine you use hasn't been tampered with, or is there that nagging little thought in the back of your head that something could have been rigged?

I trust the store to sell me the item labeled, and not poison in a peanut butter jar.

Bad idea.

Obviously, and contrary to what is apparently popular opinion on Slashdot, trust is not a binary decision.

+ - The downside of police having cameras 3

Submitted by Presto Vivace
Presto Vivace (882157) writes "Why do we object to people wearing Google Glass but call for police to be equiped with cameras? True wearing a camera would make it more difficult for officers to lie (unless the camera accidentaly breaks). But just as Google Glass picks up everything — so would a police offier's camera. Do we want that?"

Comment: Re:Apparently the trolls are out here, too (Score 1) 1028

Contrary to the typical libertarian viewpoint not all opinions matter or are worth considering.

The "libertarian viewpoint" isn't that every opinion is worth considering, it's that every opinion has an equal right to be heard.

And really, that's not a "libertarian viewpoint" so much as "the spirit of the 1st Amendment."

Comment: Re:*Dons asbestos suit* (Score 1) 1028

Quite obviously they were asking for proof of your claim,

Maybe the fact that there have been tens of thousands of threats(of admittedly varying degrees) made against her in less private venues

But yea, pretend to be dense, that'll sway people's opinions for sure.

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Comment: Re:Her work (Score 1) 1028

And your comment about censorship is correct. Anita practices it, instead of allowing comments on her videos she denies them.

Censorship is practiced only by governments. What she is doing is called "moderation",

A duck is a duck, regardless of whether you choose to call it a fowl or a mallard.

* * * * * THIS TERMINAL IS IN USE * * * * *

Working...