Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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:you care more for your own kind, its science! (Score 1) 113

by argStyopa (#49181561) Attached to: Racial Discrimination Affects Virtual Reality Characters Too

I'd argue it's still a useful sense, no matter how desperately we try to rationalize it away.

While certainly the danger from someone you know isn't zero, strangers are many, many times more dangerous in many contexts.

Just because we've industrialized the proximity of strangers with our cities, doesn't change the simple fact that strangers are more risky than people you know. And while skin-color doesn't equate to "someone I know", even a 5% benefit is likely evolutionarily impactful.

What's curious is that these studies also tend to show that in the US adult black-skinned individuals LIKEWISE act preferentially to white-skinned individuals*, suggesting that it's not just identificatory friend-or-foe at work, but likely learned behavior from experience.
*I'd be interested in seeing comparisons of the results from adults vs pre-socialized children, but I've never seen them presented in a controlled enough fashion to say they're comparable.

Comment: Re:God Republicans are Stupid (Score 2) 72

by ScentCone (#49181545) Attached to: The Mexican Drug Cartels' Involuntary IT Guy

Well, she didn't break the law.

Actually, she did. The law requires all official communication to be archived by the government. She deliberate set up mechanism to avoid that. That legal requirement was in place long before it was further enhanced by a later bill that spoke directly to the issue of personal email accounts and the timeliness of forwarding personal mail to offical mailboxes. She HAD NO OFFICIAL MAILBOX, because she didn't want that record keeping to even happen in the first place. She set up a personal platform so that she, and only she, could decide what content, if any, might eventually be passed along to a platform subject to FOIA requests, etc.

She was both nefarious AND wrong, and in every way that matters here, acting deliberately outside the law for her own purposes. And she paid cash to someone operating under a false name to set it up, just to make sure we'd all eventually realize just how sleazy she was really being about it.

Comment: Re:God Republicans are Stupid (Score 1) 72

by ScentCone (#49181459) Attached to: The Mexican Drug Cartels' Involuntary IT Guy
Nonsense, Mr/s Clinton apologist. Well before that law was passed, there was already a requirement to retain all official communications, including emails. She set this up specifically to get around such scrutiny, and did it the moment that she was named as the nominee for the job. Her use of a false name on the registration and cash payment to the consultant just contributes to the atmosphere (and reality) of deliberate avoidance of the legal requirements.

A law the speaks directly to the matter of forwarding along private messages from private mailboxes that get occasionally used in connection with official duties doesn't mean that the already existing laws about retaining all official communication didn't already exist. They did. She chose not to establish an official mailbox at State. Her personal mail account on her phony-name-registered domain WAS BY DEFAULT her official email channel. And she did not in any way comply with the existing laws that required ongoing official storage of her communications within government systems and available for things like FOIA requests. Countless FOIA requests for her correspondence were in fact completely ignored because of this deliberate loophole that she established (look! no official records of my communication exist because there are no records!).

And because it's her own private email sandbox, SHE gets to decide which messages she should or shouldn't pass along for official archiving per the law. We as her employers have no recourse to see if her judgement on the matter is or was sound, or even legally correct. This was a deliberate act on her part to avoid legally mandated scrutiny of her communications as a government official. Combine that with her panhandling for donations from foreign governments (WHILE she was Secretary of State!) to fund the foundations from which her family drew income and which did things like fly them around the world in luxury accommodations, and you can see why she might indeed want to dodge the law and hide her communications.

Comment: Re:Same guy? (Score 1) 72

by ScentCone (#49181379) Attached to: The Mexican Drug Cartels' Involuntary IT Guy

Wow, you were really straining to make that unrelated political rant seem on topic.

Not at all. I think it's humorous (or would be, if it didn't contribute to a large body of evidence about the Clinton way of doing things) to think that one of Obama's would-be (at the time) cabinet secretaries, the moment she was named for the job, ran out and paid cash to have a personal mail server set up under a false registrant's name, specifically so that nobody could ever know which or her emails was, or wasn't part of her official legacy in that job - despite the law requiring her to make all such communication part of her ongoing records at State. That she did this under the table, and never even set up an official mailbox at State, and was magically able, for years, to avoid FOIA requests for her official communications, is just fantastically corrupt. The parallels with some IT guy in Mexico being asked to set up a shadow communications platform for a corrupt cartel there aren't imaginary, they're actually interesting.

It's topical because new of Clinton's furtive behavior along these lines is breaking right now, and it's a related topic. The main point of interest for this audience is the notion of being asked (or forced, in the example of TFA) to set up systems under dubious conditions (legality-wise), and keeping mum to avoid the sort of heat that can come down on them from the people who want the work done.

Comment: Same guy? (Score -1, Flamebait) 72

by ScentCone (#49180741) Attached to: The Mexican Drug Cartels' Involuntary IT Guy
I wonder if that's the same guy who worked under a fictitious name, for cash, to set up the private e-mail server and domain that Hillary Clinton used for HER back-channel communications, in lieu of an official mailbox, throughout her entire tenure as Secretary of State. It has to be odd to be an IT consultant with a high profile customer like that and be unable to mention the gig on your CV. We've all worked under NDAs, but I guess working for a well-funded person or group that insists you actually use a fake name with the registrars and take cash (if you're lucky!) for the job would certainly take on a different flavor.

Comment: It's always been true, it's just easier (Score 1) 109

by argStyopa (#49180229) Attached to: Technology's Legacy: the 'Loser Edit' Awaits Us All

Bad historians have done this forever, carefully culling information to fit the predetermined narrative that they're trying to present. Don't get me wrong, sometimes this can be done in a way that makes history more entertaining & easier to understand as long as it's highlighted as what it is, but the tenor of modern (particularly American, particularly ) teaching of history is very much a linear, determinate thing: this happened, so then THIS happened, which logically led to that.

HIstory - even recent history - *must* be understood in-context. Frankly, that's what makes GOOD study of history a really hard thing. Monday-morning quarterbacking happens whether the event was last night or 1000 years ago. The people of, for example, Dark Ages Europe are practically aliens from another planet, in terms of how they saw the world; to interpret their choices (or worse, to render moral judgement on their actions) solely through the postmodern view of 2015 would be ludicrous, yet it happens constantly.

"History is written by the winners" has always been true; the internet has simply made it a sport everyone can enjoy. It's no longer academic historians fighting closeted battles over esoteric issues within their field, it's the subject of daily conversation.

Further, with the astonishingly short memory/attention span of the modern American electorate, tendentious people are able to get away with the constant revisionist presentation of events within recent memory.

Hell, half the political conversations I have, the first effort is simply to establish SOME common basis of accepted facts upon which we can even constructively argue.

Idiocracy is truly approaching.

Comment: Re:Subsidized? (Score 0) 200

by Mashiki (#49179369) Attached to: The US's First Offshore Wind Farm Will Cut Local Power Prices By 40%

It can't compete with anything, though it's not nearly as bad as solar. In Ontario the Feed in tariff for wind is 30-60c/kwh, solar hits as high as 80c/kwh. Compared to hydro-electric 2c/kwh, nuclear 5c/kwh and NG 7c/kwh, there's no way to get that lower either, but I agree that it should be reduced to zero. The tech can sink or swim on it's own, and right now it's driving up electricity rates so fast that businesses are leaving and so are people and moving to where it's cheaper to live. We're still on track for the most expensive electricity in north america. Next year will tell for sure though.

Of course in many greenies handbooks this is a-okay. After all, they seem to want to bankrupt people and drive everyone into poverty for "feel good projects."

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 1) 210

Kickstarter is an investment platform.

OK, and digging loose change out of your couch cushions is you making use of a banking platform.

Everybody involved here knows that "investment" means something very specific when you're handing money to a company to use in the formation and growth of their business. What happens when you funnel money towards a favored project through Kickstarter is no more an investment than losing some change in your couch is you making a bank deposit.

There's nothing wrong with Kickstarter or with people on both ends of the gift-giving making use of it. But it's not an investment. If you're one of these people that thinks you've just "invested" money when you go to see a movie, then the term - to you - is so absurdly broad as to have no meaning, especially not in the context of an actual discussion about business finance and project funding.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (9) Dammit, little-endian systems *are* more consistent!