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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Crappy Research (Score 1) 185

Maybe I should have been clearer: Movie theaters need to earn money and they do not keep a goddamn single fraction of a cent until the movie has been out a while. I've done this unusual thing called 'talking to the owner' of a few, and it's actually altered my habits; I won't pay the concession prices, but I do wait until the movie has been out for a while and at least most of what I paid for the ticket is theirs.

If movie theater can't break a profit your bright idea will not work because there will be no theater to go see the movie at. (You are aware that the studios don't own the theaters and haven't since 1948 or so because of a SCOTUS ruling?)

I should add that, really, the reason you cite for doing it is hilarious to me because I would be in that group you expect to prefer watching it at home. I avoid the first week--weeks, if it's popular--and go during the cheap ticket hours because those are the empty times. I've even gotten private showings this way, since as long as they've sold a ticket they've got to show it...

Comment: Re:You cannot know *WHO* is voting (Score 1) 258

by Cinnamon Beige (#49703587) Attached to: Online Voting Should Be Verifiable -- But It's a Hard Problem

Let me help you. I'm going to quote the part about registration, and put into bold text what it's wanting you to register to do...and what they'll do if you're not registered, too.

You must also be registered to vote. If you are not a registered voter, DMV will assist you in completing your voter registration application during your visit, and you will still be eligible for your No Fee Voter ID.

You do realize you need to be registered to vote to be a (potential) voter, right?

Comment: Re:Good Grief... (Score 1) 57

In the EU credit reports can't mention bankruptcies over a certain age, by law. Some crimes can't be mentioned after a certain period of time either.

Internet literacy or not, some companies and managers will reject anyone with an excessively negative internet presence because they fear how it could make them look.

Let me ask you something. Is there anything that could be forgiven and forgotten in your eyes? Any kind of mistake. Of you want people to be young and not wrapped in cotton wool, you have to allow them to make mistakes and to fail, and to move on from that without it blighting the rest of their lives.

Forgiven, yes, but forgotten should never happen--I'm not terribly interested in finding myself in the same situation as those aforementioned abuse victims, for example, and I also feel that there are very valid reasons to want to be concerned about an employee who has an excessively negative internet presence because their fear about how it makes them look is not without cause, or have you missed the various people who managed to generate bad publicity and boycotts for their employers because of their unwise choices of what to put on the internet? (Somebody made the news in the US this week for this, and yes, there was an impending boycott because a lot of people were quite reasonably offended by her.)

Not only that, but this is the entire [long string of expletives] point of teaching people to not use their real name on the internet without thinking about their internet presence and undermines why a huge number of people are Not OK with Real Name policies: If I feel a need to be forgotten, I can outright change my screen names and poof, it is done. I certainly don't give potential employers any leads on my private/personal screen names--and in fact feel that it ought to be on the list of things illegal for an employer to require you provide unless essential for performing the job's responsibilities.

The EU's version, at least, comes off as an attempt to wriggle out of responsibility for ensuring the problem doesn't need to exist in the first place, through education and laws limiting what employers may require from employees (potential and current), with an implementation about as open to abuse as a passed-out drunk coed at a frat party who is displaying the fact she isn't wearing panties under her skirt.

Comment: Re:Good Grief... (Score 1) 57

I thought checking dates on items and following up on them was perfectly normal internet literacy, and I'd like to note that my understanding is that a credit report will mention even a 20-years-past bankruptcy--any bankruptcy, ever, and it doesn't go away. (And anybody offering to take it off for money is a con artist.)

You might possibly want to have chosen a better example there.

That said, part of why somebody having been charged is worth knowing is because charges are dropped for reasons other than innocence. There's the Amazing Disappearing Witnesses Trick, its twin the Astounding Recanting Witnesses Trick, the lovely problem with domestic abusers (classically) convincing their victims to forgive and forget...repeatedly, until they finally do something that they can't make go away that way... There's also some unique ones, like the serial rapist whose mom took care of buying victims' silence.

The nasty thing here is, if you want the reporting on the charges to go away when you were cleared because you were innocent--maybe they found that you weren't lying about having, say, been at the local pediatric cancer ward, reading stories to dying kids at the time it happened--it starts looking fishy. This can be really bad if the charges got dropped because the person who made them proved malicious, since this might mean I will not know to ignore the claims they make about you as long as they remember to not accuse you of anything too surreal...

If it's inaccurate or libelous, then changing it at its source is the better fix--with Google at most being asked to flag links to things that are currently under question, since patterns might be worth knowing. What would you think of a news site that you often saw links to from Google flagged? Would you trust anything there?

Comment: Re:You cannot know *WHO* is voting (Score 2) 258

by Cinnamon Beige (#49691479) Attached to: Online Voting Should Be Verifiable -- But It's a Hard Problem

... really I have no issue with mandatory voter ID -- you just need to severely over-engineer the solution to ensure it's not a burden on those in society with the least time/money/options/eduction.

And the fact that these voted ID laws never include proactive provisions to get IDs into the hands of all voters for free reveals their true intent quite clearly. Heck, Ohio is trying to enact a poll tax (banned explicitly by the Constitution, 24th Amendment) by requiring a voter ID card that you must pay for.

False: North Carolina's voter ID law does exactly that and even lets you do one-stop shopping--you can register to vote at the same time.

The thing you should be complaining about is that providing free photo IDs is not already legally required--when you have to present them to make it inside a courthouse, which you do because of security, I think it's hit the point where the state ought to not charge you for the basic version.

Comment: Re:Crappy Research (Score 1) 185

The 6 month wait is because the Academy Awards require that gap between theatrical release and showing any other way for a movie to qualify for the awards. There's every reason, however, for studios to decide to go with simultaneous release for any film whose likelihood of getting even a nomination is roughly the same as the MPAA & Friends using accurate piracy numbers by anything other than accident--though theaters might stop getting their cut as usually the first week's ticket sales go entirely to the studio, with the theaters slowly getting to keep more over the weeks. (This is why the food is so expensive: that's where they make their money.)

It'd take overhauling a good part of the system, actually, but would be very sensible to do, especially as part of installing mechanisms to future-proof the system--historically, they've been trying to pretend new technology doesn't exist and won't ever exist, and this causes problems later on when having to figure out things like music rights for a new release format not included in the original contracts. Having anticipatory measures would streamline the entire process, especially given that sometimes the problem starts with nobody knowing who (all) needs to be renegotiated with in the first place...

Comment: Let me help here... (Score 1) 185

"Theft of services" is fancy lawyer for 'failing to pay for services'--from US Legal:

Theft of service is defined by state laws, which vary by state, but typically define the crime as knowingly securing the performance of a service by deception or threat, diverting another's services to the actor's own benefit, or holding personal property beyond the expiration of rental period without consent of the owner. Intent to avoid payment may be presumed under certain circumstances, such as failure to pay for an applicable rental charge within 10 days after receiving written notice demanding payment.

Thus, it is theft of services being talked about in the classic question "If you force a sex worker to have sex with you, is it rape or theft?" (I am inclined to go with 'both.')

Comment: Re:60 million times? (Score 1) 185

Yep, makes total sense to me.

See, someone could have downloaded a single copy. Then hooked up hundreds of TVs in a circle around someone. Then forced (enhanced interrogation style) someone to watch it 60 million times worth. Okay, maybe that's excessive, but you get the idea.

I think that qualifies as torture. At least choose something better...

Comment: Re: sampling bias (Score 1) 405

by Cinnamon Beige (#49656105) Attached to: Is IT Work Getting More Stressful, Or Is It the Millennials?

You're probably in the same group as me--and I've watched other Millennials who honestly do feel entitled to a job, in the sense that we're having to work hard to have any job and recognize that the current economic environment means jobs are not easily gotten...and they're complaining because the job in their (exceedingly narrow) field that pays the (nowhere near entry-level) wage they want is not magically appearing in front of them. (I've also watched them quit jobs for strange reasons--'satisfaction' is something to consider when deciding between two jobs, especially when you've debt. 'Can I afford this job?' would have been better, as too much of the money was being eaten by the travel costs and the schedule was...apparently designed for zombies.)

Given that, frankly, I knew going into college exactly what sort of careers the various majors I was considering could get me, as well as what entry-level jobs and wages existed, and I'm at the older end of the Millennial range, I don't feel terribly sympathetic. The information to make an informed choice was there, even if it wasn't as easily obtained then as it is now.

Comment: Re:One small problem (Score 1) 509

by Cinnamon Beige (#49639993) Attached to: What To Say When the Police Tell You To Stop Filming Them

It also means you might find out that, actually, the problem is that assurance is needed that your video or photos will not land on the internet because the cop is concerned about a third party's safety and/or right to privacy--remember, there are circumstances where people have very good reason to not want it known that they talked.

This does not mean they have the right to insist you delete anything or hand over the camera, but overall it's probably polite to agree that yes, live people willing and able to talk is a good thing and if something happens to them you will of course comply with any proper warrant and provide copies of your images. Which is why you certainly won't be deleting them, they might be evidence in the future. You're just agreeing that putting them on the internet is a Bad Idea and you'd feel horrible about finding out that the pictures and/or video you took caused somebody to be murdered (correctly or not) for snitching. (But you're not getting rid of what might be useful evidence later--"See, Bob really did visit the police station on May 7th, 2015. Charlie thought he'd squealed about his drug dealing when Bob was just turning in a lost wallet, and we don't have record because Bob didn't leave his real name.")

There's actually a lot of reasons you can very politely and nicely give for why insisting you delete it would be disposing of possible evidence that you can mutually agree is useful--really, this is one of those situations where the trick often is knowing how to rig the game so that agreeing with you is best option when it comes to saving face.

Comment: Re:But why? (Score 1) 634

by Cinnamon Beige (#49578665) Attached to: How To Increase the Number of Female Engineers

This is pretty accurate, actually--the career choices women make have a huge amount to do with gender roles, which differ between cultures. (This can be pretty safely generalized to any differences between groups when it comes to this: The reason your group gave you is simply not as important as the fact it told you not to, meaning that simply doing it requires stepping out of your culturally-assigned role.) The part that's really interesting is that usually the same people complaining about the disparities show little awareness of the sociocultural forces involved, attributing it completely to bigotry--which probably goes a long way towards explaining why sometimes their efforts to raise numbers are monuments of unintentional sexism/racism...

Comment: Re: But why? (Score 1) 634

by Cinnamon Beige (#49578481) Attached to: How To Increase the Number of Female Engineers

I'm perfectly fine with it, too, except my baristas also wonder why they have so much student debt and why there are no high-paying jobs for somebody with a degree that is, even by liberal arts standards, useless. It doesn't help that sometimes I find I know more than somebody who formally studied the field--I'm fine with you getting a degree with a focus on historical erotica, but I'm going to be kind of annoyed if I find out that my casual reading of such puts me ahead of you.

That, and what got called 'grievance studies' tends to produce people who, well, won't discuss intelligently the evolution of literature, arts and what not. They're probably going to call you racial and/or sexual and/or gender epithets, possibly to your face, and in some cases not ever the right one(s), which is actually rather more annoying.

That said, I'm actually curious about why the obvious benefit to society of Sh*t That Works Safely isn't getting played up. Honestly, do people ignore the importance engineers have to such wonderful things as Buildings What Don't Fall Down, Cars What Don't Explode, Bridges That Stay Up, Stoves That Don't Catch Fire Unintentionally and the ilk? Cost matters, but history suggests that demonstrating that it can be done at all is an important & unskippable first step.

Comment: Um. (Score 1) 341

by Cinnamon Beige (#49524577) Attached to: Study Confirms No Link Between MMR Vaccine and Autism

Actually, if you think detection can't come close to answering, you're probably mostly buying the antivaxxer accounts--and I'm being quite charitable there. Admittedly, a good part of it also comes from changing the diagnostic criteria, which is a Problem because as my dev psych professor brutally put it, it's the end of the goddamn bell curve--literally so, as a certain amount of autistic behavior is within the range of normal, which means that if you want to increase the number of people with autism the easiest way is to literally lower the threshold.

This folds into the fact that, frankly, the US school system has a perverse incentive to have as many students as possible diagnosed with a disability--they get money for it--and it's one of the easiest ones to game this way. (Yes, this qualifies as practicing medicine without a license and is harmful but since when did that ever stop the public schools?)

The least nasty player in all of this is that we've lost the perverse incentive to avoid diagnosis, as the stigma's decreased and, well, forced sterlizations & euthanasia is no longer anywhere near a problem as it was around 90 years ago. (Some of these court cases are still being settled though.)

Now, on the rest of it? If the clinic fails to check the health before giving the vaccine, GTFO. Vaccines should never be given to somebody not healthy. This is why I was delayed on one of mine when I had to get mine redone--I walked in and was bounced to the ER for a serious infection.

I don't know what you mean by the '17 vaccines,' but then I live in an area where the list is...about five, all of which are cheap and out of patent. I don't actually trust Gardasil, but that's because the way they did the challenge in testing it is absurd. (This is basically the gold standard, and is deliberately infecting somebody who has gotten the vaccine with what the vaccine is supposed to be against. Very few diseases are so bad as to warrant using a faux antigen--arguably, none are, as if they're dangerous enough to make it ethically doubtful to deliberately infect somebody who volunteered and knowingly consents to doing this test, it ought to be also unethical to sell it as a vaccine because it'll still get tested this way, just on people who did not knowingly volunteer to do so...and you can cover for it a lot more easily.)

That said, we actually do have some pretty strong proof that autism is probably a defect in brain development--last I checked we'd pushed back the earliest age at which we can diagnose it to before you should be getting any vaccines, namely six months. At least some cases can be traced to exposure to diseases at the prenatal stage, as the whole idea that the womb is a sterile, clean environment is hilariously wrong--let's take rubella, for example.

People exposed to it in the womb can end up with autism.

Ever asked what the R in MMR is for? I did, or rather I read the info sheet the clinic had to give me before accepting my consent to get it (again). It's rubella. Oh, and it turns out the vaccine is not for-life, regardless of what was previously thought; herd immunity just covered for a lot of people's immune systems 'forgetting,' sort of the equivalent of nobody noticing if antique computer viruses are no longer protected against by antivirus programs because there's little chance of somebody encountering an infected system anymore...

Comment: Re:Turkey (Score 1) 249

Surprisingly? Yes. Genocide's legal definition requires the government perform the whole thing itself and do so intentionally. So, standing by and watching while non-governmental forces do it for them is also not genocide.

It's important to note that governments wrote the definition...

Comment: Re:This, if true, will utterly destroy (Score 1) 279

Very often. They don't make cameras dedicated to capturing in single frames objects that are taller than they are wide, and it is absurd to suggest going for a smaller image (or fuzzier) instead of turning my camera 90 degrees.

Actually, given that I mostly do nature photography, holding my camera horizontally is actually pretty rare and I'd certainly want a tripod if I were to be forced to do so, though I think I'd be better off inserting the tripod rectally on the person who tried to insist I use it, as I have to pack everything in, sometimes over rough trails.

I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which, when you looked at it in the right way, did not become still more complicated. -- Poul Anderson

Working...