Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 671

by Jiro (#47705583) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Also, if anyone holds a political opinion that isn't subject to change when faced with new evidence or arguments, while I admit that happens a lot, that's a problem.

But that's a different sense of "change". Evidence can change it, but you can't just change it by saying I choose not to have this belief because people with it are subject to prejudice".

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 671

by Jiro (#47703577) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I am skeptical that someone can honestly think, for instance, that farm subsidies are good, then say "I choose to believe that farm subsidies are bad", and tomorrow honestly believe that farm subsidies are bad. I'm not even convinced that "choosing to believe X" is a coherent concept.

But even supposing that someone has a messed up belief process such that they can do this, intelligent people who use reasoning won't to be that way. Congratulations: you've just decided that prejudice against people with the wrong politics is "different" from prejudice against gays when its only different for people who you don't want on your forum anyway.

(Or you could just say "well, anyone who disagrees with my political side is stupid and doesn't use reasoning". But I hope you can see what's wrong with that.)

Comment: Re:No exemptions for zero-knowledge services? (Score 1) 82

by Jiro (#47703325) Attached to: Delaware Enacts Law Allowing Heirs To Access Digital Assets of Deceased

It says that the heir has the same rights as an authorized user. An authorized user who lost the password in this situation would not be able to get it by asking the company, so the heirs would not be able to ask the company either. On the other hand, if the heirs do get the password (maybe the deceased left it in a safety deposit box), it would stop the company terminating the account for TOS violation.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 671

by Jiro (#47703201) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change.

Being a capitalist, conservative, liberal, etc. is ultimately a description of your beliefs. You can't choose or change your beliefs--you didn't arrive at your beliefs by suddenly saying "I choose to believe in farm subsidies", you figured out that farm subsidies are good or bad. Even though people with opposite beliefs could argue that you made a mistake when figuring it out, you still figured it out to the best of your ability and can't just change that by force of will.

Beliefs are not like rooting for a football team.

(Of course, you could still change your actions--you can't choose to believe in capitalism, but you could choose to buy stocks or speak about capitalism--but that applies to homosexuality too. You could choose to have gay sex, to express pride in being gay, etc.)

Comment: Re:Well I Think That's Swell! (Score 1) 82

by Jiro (#47703083) Attached to: Delaware Enacts Law Allowing Heirs To Access Digital Assets of Deceased

If the deceased had things on paper, or on their computer at home, they would certainly be able to learn things about the deceased. How is this different?

Do you want to prevent people from inheriting paper documents from the deceased so relatives can't find out about their gay love letters or whatever?

Comment: Re:Or (Score 5, Interesting) 82

by Jiro (#47701511) Attached to: Delaware Enacts Law Allowing Heirs To Access Digital Assets of Deceased

Some people have already replied that you might not be able to trust everyone with your password, but that's only one of the problems. The other problem is that although your heirs may be able to physically read the password from your sealed envelope and type it in, just typing in the password won't make your access authorized. Trying to download the deceased's ebooks, music, or apps would be piracy, and even just revealing that you accessed the account (by trying to use the information in it in a billing dispute, or to take it to the press if it is whistleblowing in nature, for instance) could subject you to a selectively prosecuted hacking charge in court to get you to shut up.

And even if you don't actually get in legal trouble for accessing the account, companies could use the illegal nature of the access to refuse to do things that they would do upon request of the account owner, such as closing the account (if you want it closed), leaving the account open (if you want to keep paying for it), or restoring or sending you a backup.

Comment: Re:War zones, 3rd world, disaster struck regions.. (Score 1) 417

by Jiro (#47680281) Attached to: Swedish Dad Takes Gamer Kids To Warzone

By that reasoning ithe subject of the game doesn't have to be war. If the kids play Fruit Ninja the dad should take them to a poverty-striken third world country that is having a food shortage, so they no longer want to trivialize the act of destroying food. As you said, starvation is something that Westerners are normally shielded from. "You're teaching people that life cannot be compared to the boom and splat of video games".

Yet it would be obviously ludicrous to do that.

Comment: Re:Gettin All Up In Yo Biznis (Score 0) 417

by Jiro (#47680163) Attached to: Swedish Dad Takes Gamer Kids To Warzone

I think that every American should have to take a trip to the war zone to see what our tax dollars go to supporting.

First of all, that reasoning has nothing to do with whether anyone played war in a video game, but the dad took the kids to the war zone *specifically* because of the video game. I'm pretty sure that if the kid was playing Phoenix Wright, the father wouldn't take the kid to a real court room to show him how video games don't accurately describe the justice system.

Second, our tax dollars go to lots of things. Our tax dollars support courts, firefighters, police, farm subsidies, NPR, and a whole lot of other things, but nobody says "every American should take a trip to National Public Radio to see what our tax dollars go to support". It's a double standard which is supposedly because our tax dollars support it but never gets said of anything else which our tax dollars support.

Comment: Re:EU right to alter history (Score 1) 113

by Jiro (#47656177) Attached to: Wikipedia Gets Critical Reception from UK Press at Wikimania 2014

The company that refuses to hire you because you stole a candy bar 10 years ago isn't going to give you a rejection letter saying so. They'll make up some BS excuse. There's no way to prove that the company did this short of doing a statistical analysis on hundreds of companyes and determining that people who stole a candy bar 10 years ago have some reduced chance of getting jobs, and even then you're not going to be able to prove any single company did it when that company has too few applicants who stole candy bars to calculate meaningful statistics. So no, you can't just boycott the company.

Besides, it may not be possible to boycott a company for something like this since it would get lost in the noise--which is worse, a company rejecting one job applicant unfairly, or a company overcharging millions of people some small amount? The first is worse if you're the one individual, the second is worse if you average out the one person affected really bad and the many other unaffected people. Boycotts would be based on the average badness of the company, so the first category is not subject to useful boycotts.

Comment: Useless (Score 5, Insightful) 177

by Jiro (#47621169) Attached to: Algorithm Predicts US Supreme Court Decisions 70% of Time

According to the Supreme Court recently affirmed 27% of lower court decisions and reversed 73%. This means that if you guess that the Supreme Court reverses the lower court every time, you'll be 73% accurate. 70% accuracy is ridiculously low if you can get 73% accuracy *without* taking into consideration the records of each justice or any other kind of details.

Comment: Re:Not an open source problem (Score 1) 430

by Jiro (#47600533) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What To Do About the Sorry State of FOSS Documentation?

The problem is specific to open source because of the motivations of open source developers. People write documentation when they are paid to do so, but people don't generally write documentation for fun, nor do they write documentation when they need to modify a program in order to get something done.

"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -- William E. Davidsen