Comment: Re:Slashdot achievements (Score 1) 1582
I'm only posting for the AF achievement.
Comment: Re:Flagrun! (Score 1) 135
There's a version of Avanti which has the offense start with the flag, and have to move it to the point, and which point it is changes over time. There's also a one-way CTF map called stb_cowtown which has only one team trying to get the flag, and the other team defending, and a total of 4 flags on the map.
Comment: Re:Valve Time (Score -1, Troll) 135
Left 4 Dead was pretty clearly rushed out, and the 360 version still suffers from all the bugs- though that is going to be dealt with in a few weeks, it seems.
Comment: Re:Ubuntu annoyances? (Score 1) 253
sudo -i does what you want.
Comment: Re:Someone actually listens to NPR? (Score 1) 128
Without knowing specifically what the questions are that they were asked, it's impossible to tell whether this is relevant or the result of your usual right-wing persecution complex being fueled with a hackjob poll and repeated ad nauseam without any of the details (I've seen this sort of figure cited multiple times but never seen the original poll it supposedly came from) until everyone else believes it because it's been repeated so often.
Let's take the first one you listed- gays- and run with it.
Do you believe that homosexuality is an abomination?
Yes (Conservative)
No (Liberal)
Oh look, the media has a liberal bias! (We're not going to mention the fact that if you phrase the question like this the entire population would have a liberal bias.)
When it comes to something like this, always, always look at the original from the pollster; or else ignore it because there's no way anyone else can tell whether it's credible or not.
Comment: Re:This is pointless (Score 1) 540
The Coca-Cola Co. formulated "New Coke" based on the Diet Coke recipe. Coke Zero is literally the standard Coca-Cola with a different sweetener.
Comment: Re:wow (Score 1) 844
Except, of course, that Jesus also says plenty of things that are hardly peaceful- "Sell your robes and buy a sword", that he "brings not peace but a sword"; and of course, that nasty little bit about how he plans to separate families...
Comment: Re:wow (Score 4, Insightful) 844
There are at least a half-dozen quotes in the bible saying that unbelievers should be killed, and a bunch more saying that people who perform certain actions (which aren't unethical from a secular perspective) should be killed. And of course, there's "be not yoked with unbelievers".
It's not a Quran-specific thing. All the Abrahamic religions have no respect whatsoever for those outside of the religion. The mentality boils down to nothing more than "hate everyone who's not one of us".
Comment: Re:Classics, not just stuffy rhetoric or dull hist (Score 1) 276
You might be on to something. Whenever I hear Dane Cook, I'm sorry I heard him.
Comment: Re:god and diamonds (Score 1) 249
Then you're not doing it right.
+ - Why isn't privacy invasion considered "theft&#
Submitted
by
An anonymous reader writes "Its become common practice for companies and industries to refer to a wide variety of digital actions as "theft". If you download media content without paying for it, you have stolen it. If you download a pirated copy of software to check out its suitability, you have stolen it. If you use any copyrighted material in a Youtube video without consent — well, you've stolen it. God forbid if get your hands on data a company considers "confidential" — instant arrest and imprisonment. Theft, theft, theft is the mantra and it seems that not a day goes by without some industry association reminding the world that all internet users are thieves at heart.
What about the privacy of ordinary people? Mainstream media like the BBC and CNN always uses soft terms like "privacy concerns" to make it seem like a "well it isn't very nice, but its hardly a hard crime" thing. But is this actually the case? Does having to have your likeness recorded for an unknown period of time by CCTV cameras when you go for a stroll past some shops, or having your IP logged by each website you take a glance at not "take" something from you? What about datamining, where computer algorithms try to "figure out" where you are in the world, what kind of person you are, what your interests, consumption habits and preferences look like, what you might be likely to buy or spend? Again, does this not constitute "taking" something from you that you have not voluntarily provided? Would you shop at a creepy record store or bookstore where some scientist in a labcoat follows you from shelf to shelf with a clipboard and notes down the exact time you looked at items, the sequence you looked at them in, and some information that lets the shop know that you, not some new customer is back and browsing for more? Would you consent to bricks and mortar shops coating sidewalks with a special substance that makes your shoeprints stand out in bright colors and let them figure out where you came from or where you went after you checked out?
Is it not "theft" to take something a person cares about and cannot get back once its taken? Is it not "theft" to force a person to leave an "imprint" of their presence behind with every digital step, no matter how casual or insignificant? To record someone's activities as if its "normal" that every step you take should be recorded in some way and become the property of whoever recorded it? To whisk someone's data into some database at a datacenter where the person who effectively OWNS the data will never see it again?
And would labeling privacy invasion "theft" or "stealing" in daily discourse be an effective way to corner those organizations, digital or not, that trample on people's privacy without appology? Should we remind mainstream media organizations that use fluffy terms like "privacy concerns" to add that "privacy infringement is in fact theft"? Should we treat companies that don't take privacy seriously as "thieves" and openly label them as such?"
What about the privacy of ordinary people? Mainstream media like the BBC and CNN always uses soft terms like "privacy concerns" to make it seem like a "well it isn't very nice, but its hardly a hard crime" thing. But is this actually the case? Does having to have your likeness recorded for an unknown period of time by CCTV cameras when you go for a stroll past some shops, or having your IP logged by each website you take a glance at not "take" something from you? What about datamining, where computer algorithms try to "figure out" where you are in the world, what kind of person you are, what your interests, consumption habits and preferences look like, what you might be likely to buy or spend? Again, does this not constitute "taking" something from you that you have not voluntarily provided? Would you shop at a creepy record store or bookstore where some scientist in a labcoat follows you from shelf to shelf with a clipboard and notes down the exact time you looked at items, the sequence you looked at them in, and some information that lets the shop know that you, not some new customer is back and browsing for more? Would you consent to bricks and mortar shops coating sidewalks with a special substance that makes your shoeprints stand out in bright colors and let them figure out where you came from or where you went after you checked out?
Is it not "theft" to take something a person cares about and cannot get back once its taken? Is it not "theft" to force a person to leave an "imprint" of their presence behind with every digital step, no matter how casual or insignificant? To record someone's activities as if its "normal" that every step you take should be recorded in some way and become the property of whoever recorded it? To whisk someone's data into some database at a datacenter where the person who effectively OWNS the data will never see it again?
And would labeling privacy invasion "theft" or "stealing" in daily discourse be an effective way to corner those organizations, digital or not, that trample on people's privacy without appology? Should we remind mainstream media organizations that use fluffy terms like "privacy concerns" to add that "privacy infringement is in fact theft"? Should we treat companies that don't take privacy seriously as "thieves" and openly label them as such?"
+ - Ohio University finds key to getting RIAA to stop 7
Submitted
by
NewYorkCountryLawyer
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Ohio University, in Athens, Ohio, has found the key to getting the RIAA to stop inundating it and its students with "settlement" letters. According to the university's student online publication, the university paid $60,000, plus $16,000 per year "maintenance", to Audible Magic, the business partner of the RIAA's all-purpose expert witness Dr. Doug Jacobson, for its "CopySense" filtering software. Once it made the payments, the letters stopped. This of course raises a lot of questions as to the 'disinterestedness' of Dr. Jacobson, whose deposition in the UMG v. Lindor case was the subject of interesting Slashdot commentary."
+ - Texas Legislative voting fraud->
Submitted
by
JoshJ
JoshJ writes "Apparently the Texas legislature allows congresspeople to run around pressing voting buttons that aren't theirs. Some of them have even been caught on camera. This should become an interesting story if it spreads."
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
+ - Preorders open for 230MPG car-> 4
Submitted
by
m4ximusprim3
m4ximusprim3 writes "Aptera Automotive, maker of the Aptera 230mpg diesel hybrid is now taking $500 "pre orders" for the car, which is scheduled to go into production in 12 months.
The Vehicle seats two people side by side, gets 230mpg at 55mph, has a trunk large enough for a surfboard, and goes from 0-60 in less than 10 seconds.
And, it looks like a fish!"
Link to Original Source
The Vehicle seats two people side by side, gets 230mpg at 55mph, has a trunk large enough for a surfboard, and goes from 0-60 in less than 10 seconds.
And, it looks like a fish!"
Link to Original Source
+ - Flour trail deemed terrorist threat->
Submitted
by
Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Sprinkling flour on the ground is evidently a felony now. Two runners marked a running trail through an IKEA parking lot using a bag of flour causing a bioterrorism scare and the evacuation of the IKEA store. Upon hearing about the investigation, the runners contacted authorities to tell them the powder was just flour. Now the two runners face felony charges. Mayoral spokeswoman Jessica Mayorga said, "You see powder connected by arrows and chalk, you never know. It could be a terrorist, it could be something more serious.""
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source