Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 684

The problem with equating the living conditions in traveling to Mars/living on Mars with the Age of Sail is that in the Age of Sail, the environment was not inimical to human life.

Yes, life on a sailing vessel was difficult. Cramped quarters, problems with diet and nutrition, and so on.

But you could breathe. You could step out on the deck of the ship for fresh air (relatively speaking). You can't do that on a space capsule.

You could catch fish, or land on an island to forage to supplement your diet. You can't do that when the nearest land mass is millions of kilometers away.

There are going to be a substantial number of problems to overcome regarding any sort of long-term survival on Mars.

Comment Re:Is this proportional to the number of systems? (Score 1) 47

I know a guy who works for the local university IT department, and at the beginning of every semester, there's the hassle of ensuring minimum security/virus protection protocols on all the new computers and laptops (and probably tablets too) that students bring to campus.

You'd be surprised by the number of students who get a case of the chapped ass over installing the mandated virus protection before using the university's network.

Comment Re:Just a question (Score 4, Insightful) 389

Yeah, I can't possibly figure out why we would want to do anything for a people that were systematically killed, evicted off their lands, repeatedly lied to by the government, repeatedly had treaties broken by the government, kept from practicing their religion, had their kids taken away, had their sacred lands taken away for mining if anything valuable was found on those lands, shoved onto reservations (which could also be taken away if anything valuable was found there), and treated as inferior in every way.

Gosh, it's almost like we realized we were giant assholes to a particular group of people for a few centuries and feel bad about it.

Comment Re:Hmmm. (Score 2) 410

But if Reddit (or any other site) bans a topic of conversation, they are not infringing on your free speech rights. You're still free to say it. Just not there.

You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to force others to listen.

Furthermore, most sites have a "terms of use" agreement for people who post comments. If you agree to those terms of use, you are inherently accepting any limitations in those terms of use, and can't reasonably claim that they're denying you freedom of speech if they mute/ban you if you breach those terms.

Reddit is not required to give you a forum for something they don't want on there.

Comment Re:Journalism (Score 1) 210

Actually, depending on the content of the article and the work-relationship with the paper, the writer of an article can be sued. Also, if you're writing for a newspaper that has any sort of real coverage (not some local market shopper or low circulation paper), then a lot of those articles... especially the ones that might jump-start a lawsuit are vetted, edited and checked multiple times.

Mind you, if they're just repeating something off of the AP wire, then that tends to pass the buck back up the food chain.

Letters to the editor skip past this with the "The views expressed in these letters are not the views of this paper" boilerplate.

As for why these reviewers could get sued. Well, it's the U.S. You can initiate a lawsuit against practically anyone for practically any reason. Actually winning the lawsuit can be a lot trickier, though.

Also, a lot of these review sites, especially ones like Yelp, typically contain some legal boilerplate saying that the reviewer is the one responsible for the content of their review, you have to be honest about it, etc.

So, if these are fake reviews (the reviewer never actually used the business in question), and are just badmouthing the business to be jerks... well, that's actionable.

Comment Re:What? Why discriminate? (Score 1) 700

Given that the Middle East has been having problems with religious violence since roughly forever, no, it's not surprising that there are conflicts between various religious groups, especially regarding one group proselytizing on another group's patch, as it were.

It's also hardly limited to the Middle East, for that matter. Europe had the 30 Years' War, the Albigensian Crusade, the Spanish Inquisition....

However, modern day, at least here in the States, it's just a bit different. Our streets are not exactly running red with the blood of one religious group killing members of another religious group. And most religious groups here in the States aren't hiding their religious texts behind the concept of trade secrets.

Scientology is. The Catholic church isn't sending out DMCA lawsuits every time someone posts a copy of a papal bull, for instance. Protestants don't necessarily like the Pope, but they're not claiming that Catholics have no right to practice Christianity outside of the Protestant faith. Scientology insists that only in the Church of Scientology can you practice Scientology. Okay, sure, they have no actual legal force to stop the Free Zoners from practicing Scientology, but it doesn't stop them from harassing them in other ways.

"It's like deja vu all over again." -- Yogi Berra