Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:And? (Score 1) 102

If you're in the US, losing the entire Russian government market is a blow to the balance of trade and local economy. This single contract is just representative of everything that's happening across the industry - it's far larger.

But Americans seem to WANT NSL's and are willing to sacrifice the entire tech sector, the basis of their economic growth, for an increased police state. Maybe they'll get to pick the size of their grey tunics.

Comment Re:Worse when it's icky and weird but not illegal (Score 1) 111

The story raises so many interesting questions, especially since you're so conservative yourself. The main one being, was it even "gay fetish sex photos"? What, you saw a dick and you thought "gay"? And then from there you had this whole reaction about how dare he be gay when he lives a conservative lifestyle with a wife? From there you immediately assumed his wife didn't know? That he was a hypocrite? And 20 years later you still don't understand what an asshole you were being?

I can only surmise that two men sharing sexually explicit photos of themselves somehow qualifies as having at the very least a strong undertone of homosexuality.

I don't know what world you live in, but surely 20 years ago, there were very few conservative religious institutions that were openly supportive of poly-amorous marriages, especially those which involved bisexual or homosexual relationships.

I think assuming that he was engaged in a secretive, homosexually-oriented relationship in contradiction to his stated religious beliefs and in contradiction to his marriage vows isn't exactly going out on a limb with my own personal biases.

Of course, if you're inclined you can choose to believe some counterfactual argument that exchanging photos of one's genitalia with a member of the same sex isn't homosexual behavior on any level, that his wife knew of and approved of this, and that he belonged to a Christian religious denomination that approved of poly-amorous marital relations involving sexual behavior with a member of the same sex. Hell, you might even throw in the idea that his employer endorsed using his work email account for this, since it's about as likely to be true as any of the other counterfactual arguments.

Comment Re:Worse when it's icky and weird but not illegal (Score 1) 111

Why do you presuppose being gay means you can't be conservative or religious or have a family?

In every Christian denomination I can think of, including the current Mormon church, a marriage is an exclusive relationship between two people. Until only very recently that same thing would have been true written as "...between a man and a woman" and still is in a huge number of mainstream religions.

Given the definition of "exclusive" and "two people" as being basically immutable, I don't really see how engaging in fetishistic and surreptitious (even if not explicitly homosexual) sexual behavior with other people actually fits the exclusive part.

I think it's beyond debate that doing this with your work account is downright stupid.

Comment Re:I agree with them (Score 1) 168

While their belief that people who don't like them won't click on them is true, advertisers are kind of like proselytizing religions. Their deepest motivation isn't to convert the mostly converted, but to reach those who are the hardest to convert. Marketers are convinced of the idea that selling to the man who doesn't want to be sold to is only a matter of reaching him with the right campaign.

Comment Re:Re-entry aiming (Score 1) 152

We'd never invade DPRK. They are basically a giant warehouse of every infantry weapon system ever developed by the Russians or Chinese. It would be a monumental effort to invade them with infantry, even after a conventional bombing campaign of months.

I would wager a nuclear reprisal by the US is more likely following even a flawed launch that dropped a nuke into the ocean. The Republican congress would declare war and impeach the President the same day if he wouldn't sign onto it. Given our current level of political divisiveness, I wouldn't put a coup d'etat against a reluctant Democratic president outside the realm of possible.

Comment Re:Let's get real (Score 2) 152

I think in terms of total probability, the US is more likely to launch a nuclear strike on DPRK than it is to invade and fight a ground war there.

DPRK is armed to the teeth with conventional weapons and has had 60 years to dig in deep, making a conventional ground assault extremely painful. Not that the US couldn't *win* such a fight should it choose to dedicate the resources, but it would be extremely resource and manpower intensive.

And for what possible gain? No appreciable natural resources, a civilian refugee crisis of epic proportions, a diplomatic shitshow with China and Russia, both of which would use a US commitment to pursue every bit of mischief they are capable of and a price tag in the trillions. Not to mention the global economic ding from the likely destruction Seoul and the disruption to a not-insignificant part of the global supply chain.

Kim's nuclear ambitions are equally ridiculous. They're decades away from any kind of reliable and effective long-range nuclear weapons program and even when they get to the point where they have a half-assed accurate ICBM that can deliver a half-assed effective nuclear weapon, what are they going to do? Any serious *attempt* at using it or even believably threatening to use it, faces the existential threat of a US retaliation that would annihilate them, something that not even the USSR at its peak could avoid, either.

Comment Worse when it's icky and weird but not illegal (Score 1) 111

At an old job back in the 1990s when we had the first company-wide email system with Internet connectivity we used an old version of Groupwise. The SMTP gateway was a standalone DOS system and it used to choke from time to time, requiring extracting the queued message it couldn't process. I used to pull these out and if possible, decode the message and attachments for the intended user.

One of these messages was to a "rising star" in the company and featured some personal chatter between the employee and some outside personal contact, complete with pictures of both of them wearing fancy suits in staged poses, but with their genitals hanging out.

The "rising star" employee was well-liked for being humble, hard-working and smart. He was also socially conservative, with pictures of his young, stay-at-home wife and fairly open about his involvement at church.

I thought the whole situation was just kind of icky -- guy trading gay fetish sex photos, while positioning himself as a conservative, religious family man. It wasn't the photos, but just the hypocrisy. I had a hard time working with the guy (which I didn't very much anyway) after because it was all just kind of creepy.

Comment Re: Too late (Score 1) 321

Republicans aren't "free marke"t or "freedom" people - they're theocratic corporatists. You might be thinking of libertarians - they're more of the "do whatever the fuck you want unless you're going to hurt someone else" mentality. They might think that an SJW company would run itself into the ground in pretty short order, but whatever - they can destroy their company if they feel like it.

Comment Re:This crap again? (Score 3, Insightful) 224

Why can't she say she was drunk, going to his apartment seemed like a good idea and they became intimate until she had second thoughts?

The story has too many holes in its timeline for this not to be a plausible explanation. You can create worse scenarios from the same facts, but it seems questionable that Richmond carried her passed out to through the streets of Florence to his hotel. She most likely agreed to it and was self-ambulatory even if she was intoxicated.

The sexual contact was probably ill desired, but it sounds like it stopped when she wanted to stop and again, we have no good explanation what put her on the bed in that situation to believe in unless you're subscribed to the idea he brought her home in a passed out state and put her on her bed.

The worst you could say that Richmond was opportunistic and a cad.

My belief is you can't call buyer's remorse sexual assault and you don't get a pass for getting intoxicated and making bad decisions that result in unwanted circumstances. It doesn't justify forcible assault, but it doesn't condemn sexual advances when you've willingly gotten into bed with them or agreeing to have sex for that matter.

Too many women are making bad decisions and having cognitive dissonance about it afterward and then seeking absolution through blame because they can't live with their mistakes.

Comment Re:Oops (Score 1) 606

That's an idiotic security model, and wired should know it.

Wired probably does, but so what? The surveillance vendors are their customers. They only write content to get you, their product, to visit the site, so they can sell your private information.

They're not going to screw over their customers for your benefit. If you go away, the unwashed masses will still stay and they'll never notice. I can't see why Wired would change anything.

Comment Re:IoT is rebranded home automation (Score 1) 82

Tomorrow you won't have an option. It will become a mandatory insurance and liability device.

It might be cheaper to have drivers who agree to tracking. That's fine - people who don't want to be tracked can pay a little extra (I would, and I haven't had an accident claim in decades). As long as there are people who don't want to be tracked, an insurance company can profit handsomely from it, and there will be a market offering.

The trouble will become when a government forces insurance companies to require tracking. But if that's the case, then the problem isn't with the IoT or the tracking; it's that you've got something that claims to protect your liberty forcing you to engage in certain types of commerce instead. Yeah, yeah, yeah, good livestock management practices on the tax farm - I get it.

Comment Re:Oops (Score 3, Insightful) 606

Were they ever really relevant, or has it most always been a lifestyle magazine for fetishizing technology? Vanity Fair for Macintosh users who fancied themselves high tech? The kind of thing the CIO keeps in his office to show he's "up to speed"?

The only people I've known to read it wouldn't know TCP from UDP and have stronger opinions about icon design than cryptographic hash functions.

To be sort-of fair, I have flipped through it a few times and found a few articles that were interesting, but it's really kind of a design-centric version of Popular Science with more emphasis on computers and networking.

Comment ask Shatner who gets credit (Score 4, Insightful) 208

From my experience with kids of this generation, there's one teacher who's responsible for most of the positive increase in mathematical competency in recent years: Salman Khan.

I'm sure you'll find any number of politicians and their cronies at the textbook corporations who will claim credit, but when they mess everything up and the children find themselves mystified and befuddled, they turn to Khan for help.

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.