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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Tired of this shit (Score 1) 448

by Dread_ed (#48615043) Attached to: Virtual Reality Experiment Wants To Put White People In Black Bodies

Yes, being white has huge advantages.

First, you can become as educated as you want without facing racial slurs and attacks from people of your own color.

You can speak in regular English without facing the same ridicule as above.

You can react to other races with courtesy and respect, again without the above negative consequences.

You have the freedom to not violently attack old people, children, anyone caught alone, and females without being thought of by your peers as weak and deserving of physical attack yourself.

You have the freedom of a wide selection of role models from a young age, many of whom are not in any way involved in criminal activity, misogyny, and/or drug use; and who are not advocating for these things.

You have the freedom of selecting a political party without reprisals from your contemporaries. And you have the added benefit of the respect of both political parties. This is mainly due to the fact that you haven't idiotically ignored institutionalized abuse by the party you overwhelmingly vote for, while actively alienating the other party, which has resulted in almost complete political sterilization for your entire racial group.

Yes, you are 100% right when you say that being white is a big benefit. However, the greatest portion of that benefit comes not from being white, but from not being black.

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 2) 772

by Dread_ed (#48562515) Attached to: CIA Lied Over Brutal Interrogations

Have any of you even considered that our government is releasing this information now, at this specific time, for a specific reason? I hear a bunch of people talking about how terrible this is/was. What I think is really brutal is a government that willfully decided to perform all of these actions, with the consent and support of relevant members of both political parties, and now uses the "revelation" of these practices as a political tool designed to manipulate the public.

Our politicians didn't give one weak fuck for how this would make our country look to the rest of the world, how this would make people feel at home and abroad, or what people might do in reaction and retaliation for this behavior or the revelation thereof. They simply used it as they would any other thing within their control, to establish greater control over the electorate, and to stamp out any coalition of the people that might challenge the way they want the American pie divided.

So for those of you who are blaming Republicans, or Democrats, or the military, or whoever else....go fuck yourselves. You are the tools of a system of government that doesn't care one whit for any of you and who uses and misleads you intentionally. By your mental attitudes and voiced opinions you attack, condemn, and destroy the only source of redress for government actions like these, namely cooperation and coalition of the people. Specific leaders from both political parties are responsible for this insane miscarriage of justice, and now they are using their monstrous actions to brutalize the American public. They will not bear the brunt of the reprisals for this, we will. When someone is taken hostage and murdered in retaliation, it wont be someone who ordered this, it will be a journalist, or a businessman, but not a politician who was actually involved. And in spite of these facts, played out in ever repeating fashion, there in the midst of this are the imbeciles, shaking their pom-poms for their favorite political party, pointing fingers at others. In all of their glorious idiocy, they are defending the politicians that commanded these hideous acts and attacking people that had nothing to do with them.

I'm really almost done. Don't know how much longer I can stand living in a country peopled by arrogant idiots that will continue to support a government that uses (among other things) torture as a weapon against their enemies as well as their citizens.

Comment: Re:Misery loves company (Score 1) 116

by Dread_ed (#46714877) Attached to: How Riot's Social Scientists Fight <em>League of Legends</em> Trolling

Playing aggressively is OK. Being offensive is counterproductive for the team, period. Apparently Riot tracks game outcomes and correlates the win loss percentage with reports of offensive behavior toward teammates. Games that have good team dynamics (no trolling/flaming of teammates, etc.) result in a higher percentage of wins.

And from what Riot is saying, what I think you are calling "playing aggressively" is an anomaly, relegated to infrequent outbursts on a "bad day" potentially by any player. A profile system wouldn't account for this one-off behavior because it is so intermittent and rare. That being said, if you did implement a profile system, would a flamethrower wielding troll with a hair temper want to play with 9 other similarly foul tempered combustonauts? That is an interesting question, and I think the answer is no. I can even imagine the game devolving into a chat room, with everyone so busy insulting each other they hardly even play the game.

I have played LoL for quite a while and the efforts they have made toward improving player conduct have had an undeniably positive effect on the game experience. Are there times I would like to unload with both barrels on a teammate? Sure there are, and I actually have. However, with the reward system, the player-run Tribunal punishment system (I have never been banned or even reprimanded BTW), and Riot's conveyance of the idea that cohesive teams result in better game outcomes, the knee-jerk reaction to flame someone is tempered and delayed enough to permit a different decision tree to be considered.

So instead of the usual flame related decisions ("Hmm which would be better to use? Talk about their mom, insult their sexual prowess or orientation, or go for the nuclear option and blast them with n-bombs?") the thought process is subverted to "Should I encourage them, provide positive constructive criticism, make suggestions on team oriented strategies to prevent the same problem, or just let them and the team know its OK and we will recover." This is good thing.

In some ways, their efforts to use social engineering with a reward and punishment system have made me into a social engineer as well. I look for ways to elicit positive responses from other players that will result in Honor rewards for myself. I also look for opportunities to make bad situations better, make good situations great, and generally help my team with the words I use. Does the team need a leader? Well then I step up and with positive encouragement and proper deference assume that role. Is there a possible conflict developing on the team between players? OK, what can I do to put myself in a position to neutralize that conflict to ensure the health of the team dynamic?

In summary I will say that their in-game controls have resulted in a much better gaming experience for me and many others. I commend them for their efforts and as a direct result of these efforts I will continue to spend my hard earned coin on frivolous skins, buying champions, and other assorted digital trinkets they offer in endless profusion and permutations. Looks like Riot has revealed in this story the step just before 3) PROFIT!

Comment: Re:It won't work! (Score 1) 218

by Dread_ed (#46625713) Attached to: Smartphone Kill-Switch Could Save Consumers $2.6 Billion

I think "c" will be the biggest roadblock. The cell companies make a killing off of the replacement phones and insurance, and possibly other charges.

Here is an example of how T-Mobile tried to make money off of a stolen phone. My stolen phone that is. Unfortunately this was just slightly before the days of iPhones so no remote wipe was possible:

1) Phone is stolen.
2) Thief uses it to call Guatemala and Honduras, runs up a ~$900 bill.
3) I report phone stolen
4) They inform me of the charges.
5) I remind them that when I signed up for their service I said I would only do it if they DEACTIVATED international calling. So how did these calls go through in the first place?
6) "Oh, I see that right here in the notes Mr. Ed. We will give you $50 off as a valued customer. How do you want to pay the remaining $850?"
7) I decline to pay and refer back to #5.
8) Proceed to accuse me of orchestrating the theft myself and charging someone to use the phone.
9) Call my wife a liar and a thief when she talks to them.

I obviously haven't paid them a cent in spite of their repeated efforts to collect this over the years. I bet their are people that do though, presented with the same scenario. Regardless, I wont trust a cell company to act in a rational way when there is a dollar to be made, extorted, or stolen from their clients. If remote bricking cuts into their bottom line it will never happen.

Comment: Re:"hacking charisma" (Score 1) 242

by Dread_ed (#46597975) Attached to: Hacking Charisma

The real trick to charisma is to manipulate yourself with falsehoods, to the benefit of others. Well, maybe not falsehoods, but untested and unproven assertions.

Anyways, just try this for a while and see if it doesn't work. Every time you meet someone new, before you have a chance to say something and hopefully before you even make eye contact, try to find at least one thing about them that you like, admire, or want to be more like yourself. Make something up if you have to, but be consistent about it. You might be amazed at the results.

Comment: Re:To be fair (Score 1) 282

I think the conversation, and the resulting political tie-in, is more about US franchise law and auto dealers dependence on said laws, than they are about an electric car, conservative ideology, or any particular politician.

Auto dealer groups comprise a powerful lobby with massive dollars to spend on politicians and long standing relationships with our governing bodies. These dealer groups are by and large threatened by Tesla's "direct to customer" model because it cuts them right out of the picture. Their greatest fear is once Tesla has cemented this as a viable and legal distribution method for their cars, what will stop other manufacturers from following suit and putting the franchise auto dealers out of business?

Thus, state and national auto dealer groups have been exerting whatever influence they can to maintain the status quo concerning franchise law, and this means standing in opposition to Tesla's business model. It really has nothing to do with the car, nor does it have anything to do with conservative thinking, or even that the car is electric. It is merely about the fact that lots of people who have been making lots of money for a very long time under current franchise law don't want to see that change. If it does you might begin to see manufacturers buying out their franchise dealers and running their own operations for sales and service in the US.

If all manufacturers go to this distribution model, or have it as an available choice, what does that mean for us?

1) Does that mean some of the prohibitive barriers to successfully producing and marketing a new car make have suddenly disappeared? I think that may be a yes, and that's possibly a good thing. More choice, more avenues for innovation and economic opportunity. On the downside, a lack of required infrastructure, like service facilities, dealerships where they have staff on hand to take care of the customers, etc. can make the ownership experience particularly daunting. I think Tesla has handled this right, however another company coming along after them might not. This is a major point of contention in the franchise law battle. Currently manufacturers are required to have a certain number of service facilities and sales floors.

2) Would widespread adoption of Tesla's business model by other manufacturers adversely affect prices? I think it *could* result in lower prices for cars and related services as you could cut out a middleman. However, imagine if every Ford dealer in your state was owned by the same company. That would reduce or even eliminate competition, and make it very easy to have institutionalized price fixing that would be very difficult to detect and prosecute. Less competition is bad for customers in general, and bad for companies as well as there is no drive to perform better, work harder, give better customer service than the other guy.

3) How will this affect jobs? The economy, etc.?

This really needs a lot of thought put in to it. Its not as simple as just saying, "Hey, its Tesla, its an awesome car, and an awesome idea, lets just let them do it." Its about all of the other manufacturers that are eying this exchange and getting ready to start pushing boundaries themselves. Where that will lead is really uncertain.

Comment: Re:Big Government (Score 1) 405

by Dread_ed (#46565949) Attached to: L.A. Police: <em>All</em> Cars In L.A. Are Under Investigation

You think this is just the "Republican" way? Democrats are all about redistributing wealth, but not of the 1%. Methinks your "hate-tinted" glasses need to be cleaned. Everything you said in your post after that may be true, but the Democrtats are just as complicit and guilty of pandering to the top 1% and ensuring their position at the expense of the rest of us.

I dont know the rest of your posting history, but whenever I see anyone with that strong of feeling towards either one of the parties foisted upon the US electorate I have the same response you did: "You are a slave. They won, you lost." Even worse, you're a house slave. You're defending them and attacking their supposed enemies. Good slave, keep up the good work.

Comment: Re:It's just a tool I guess (Score 1) 294

by Dread_ed (#46371071) Attached to: Doctors Say New Pain Pill Is "Genuinely Frightening"
Very true. However, in addition to the obvious harm caused by ridiculous prison sentences, court costs, fines, and the inevitable medical problems from tainted and impure illicit chemicals, there are negative repercussions from the stigma and mental attitudes towards individuals with substance abuse problems. These attitudes are perpetuated and heavily reinforced by criminalization. The feelings of "they deserve what they get" and "well they shouldn't be doing drugs" when someone with substance abuse issues meets an untimely fate or experiences catastrophic problems is insufficient to fostering individual and societal health. These attitudes cause harm to addicted individuals and society alike.

Bear in mind that many of the addicted have untreated mental health issues that prevent them from interfacing with society normally. They "cope" with their mental problems, which could be easily addressed by any number of widely available pharmaceuticals, with illicit drug use. Many of these individuals could be returned to happy, healthy, productive members of society if they were able to interface with medical professionals that could not only help them with their addiction, but also address the underlying problems that led them down the path to addiction initially. The main roadblock to identifying, treating, and ultimately healing these people is directly traceable to the criminalization of drugs.

The irony is that criminalization doesn't stop them from acquiring and using drugs, it just stops them from getting off of drugs.

Comment: Re:Any drones yet? (Score 1) 323

by Dread_ed (#45911339) Attached to: Cartels Are Using Firetruck-Sized Drillers To Make Drug Pipelines
Damn right! Not only would we reduce violent crime and incarceration rates, we would also give uncounted masses of chronic drug usesr that are in desperate need of mental health assistance a chance to interface with medical personnel. Removing the perjorative aspects of drug use is the first step to removing the stigma. It is the stigma (well and fear of prosecution) that keeps underpriveledged and dispossesed addicts from seeking mental health assistance that could get them off of drugs and into real treatment of the underlying causes of addiction. Namely, untreated psychological disorders.

But what to do with all of the infrastructure, ingenuity, business acumen, and cut throat (literally!) tacticians that have made the drug trade so profitable and effective? I say we harness the power of prohibition! Since prohibition is so great at forcing the development of low cost methods of acquisition, production, and distribution it would be a shame and great disservice to just let it collapse on itself and atrophy. Let's outlaw alternate fuels and green energy. Lets outlaw cybernetic implants. Lets outlaw safe sex! Then we will be certain to have a constant supply of these newly banned services at unheard of low prices and without even a the faintest hint of elitist bias in distribution. And why should this work? Because, well, that's just the nature of prohibition, and man for that matter.

Comment: Re:Baseballs... (Score 1) 265

All we need is automated mining and smelting equipment, some fancy 3d printers, and programmable assembly robots. Then we can Von Neumann the shit out of the moon and asteroids!

Most of their mass is not worthwhile to transport back to Earth, but would make fantastic raw materials for more robots, spare parts, spacecraft hulls, etc. Building a massive iron spacecraft is not a thing we would do on earth due to the expense of getting it out of ye olde gravity well. However, if its assembled in space who cares!

The valuable "trace" elements could be accumulated and sent back to earth or used in-situ for electronics, catalysts to process CHON into chemical propellant, or whatever is neded.

Pie in the sky bootstrapping, I know. But let a boy dream, eh?

Comment: Re:It's still there? (Score 1) 361

Worse, Consensus != Correct Response.

And even worse than that, Fact != Correct Response.

I have not heard one single suggestion from those that associate themselves favorably with the idea of "climate change" that wasn't foolish, irrelevant, or even outright destructive. So what if they are right, it just means we are all fucking doomed. They are wasting all of their vast media exposure, grassroots support, and political clout on things that won't make a damn bit of difference if the Earth's future is anything like its past. We will just be another species in the 98% column.

I am not a "believer", nor am I a "denier". I am a realist. As a realist all of the causes, predictions, models, and wild empassioned gesticulations around the subject of "climate change" are inconsequential. I will say this again, the causes, at our current level of preparation, are irrelevant. What is relevant is the Earth has been both hotter and colder than it currently is, intolerably so, and innumerable times in repeating cycles. We are living in a generouosly temperate era, a fortunate anomoly that has given us the ability to cover this planet with people. Regardless of what we do, this Elysian comfort we are so dependent on will eventually end. A realist knows that the only logical result of these facts is to prepare for the worst our planet has to offer, or suffer extinction.

Of course a realist also knows that a species that uses the spectre of global climate change to manipulate markets, expand taxation, circumvent rights and priviledges previously guaranteed, and as a political power grab deserves whatever it gets. Stupid humans.

Comment: Re:I believe it (Score 1) 1010

by Dread_ed (#45852925) Attached to: New Study Shows One-Third of Americans Don't Believe In Evolution
As a self-admitted deist, I have come to the conclusion that both atheism and deism are intellectually inferior to agnosticism. There is insufficient provable evidence for both the existence and non-existence of any supernatural, universe creating entity. And, while that may lead some on the path of least resistance to atheism, I dont think it is intellectually superior to agnosticism.

Oddly, I came to this conclusion by reading "The hero with a thousand faces" by Joseph Campbell. His attempt to distill and illuminate the coincidences and commonalities in religious mythos got me thinking of this as well. I noticed that a common thread throughot most religions is the concept of "free will" coupled with decisions or actions. Whether that is exemplified by the call to believe or to excercise some ritual, the core is that deities respect free will and demand people use it to confirm thier acquiescence to their diety.

It is then no strech to say that a deity that respects free will cannot "stack the deck" in their favor by creating a universe where their existence is undeniable without invalidating that free will. To take this thought even further experimentally, consider that if we existed in a universe where god was provable, choosing to believe or have faith in a deity would be meaningless, which would invalidate all this effort on the part of the deity to make human decisions so eternally important. Your choice would be to either acknowledge a fact or to wilfully ignore the evidence.

Not much of a choice, which brings us back to the idea of free will. I posit that if a universe creating deity exists, and specifically creates beings designed to make free decisions for or against that deity, it must create a universe for those beings to live in that is identical to one where god does not exist. So, in order to preserve the freedom of choice that a diety will ostensibly use to determine our eternal future, that deity has to remove any irrefutable proof of their existence from the universe.

Again, this is just a deists perspective on why I think agnostics hold an intellectually superior position to both deists and atheists. YMMV.

Administration: An ingenious abstraction in politics, designed to receive the kicks and cuffs due to the premier or president. -- Ambrose Bierce