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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re: Germany wants a lot... (Score 1) 584

You are stupid.

Facebook is an American company

There is no such thing as "american company". Did you miss the whole Globalization thing?

they should remove all servers from Germany and let them do the work

omg, you are so stupid it hurts. Doing business is not putting your servers there. It is making contracts (advertisement, FBs business model) with companies there, it is having users (it's product) there.

For all intents and purposes, FB produces in Germany and sells in Germany. That is what "doing business" means, not some stupid hardware.

Think about how much work it is to abide by EVERY law in EVERY nation

Poor multinational corporation. It's so much work to comply with all those laws. Nah, let's not do it, too complicated.

Simple answer: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you want to run a world-wide company, yes there is going to be a little bit of work involved. Don't like it? Don't run a world-wide business. So simple.

Comment Re:Why autonomous cars? (Score 1) 144

Why do we need autonomous elevators? Why are we putting elevator operators out of work?

You make a good point. The first building I worked in out of college had an elevator operator and he was a cool old dude. Extremely helpful, and much much much more useful than the new digital building directory systems in place today. He could not only tell you which floor and suite you wanted, but he'd give helpful tips on the way up like, "his secretary seems nasty, but if you ask her about her kids in the photo on her desk, she'll be really nice and even bring you coffee while you're waiting for your appointment". For those in the know, he was also a horse-player and would give very good tips in races at Arlington Park. More than once he told me, "A sharp lad might want to put $10 on Lightning Switch in the 7th race today." One time he even gave me the 1-2-3 combination in the trifecta and made me over $300 bucks, which to a barely-paid mail-room boy was a lot of scratch. Let's see some Siri-fied automated building directory system do that. He would also make sure that if you were hustling to the elevator carrying boxes, he'd wait until you caught up. There were several banks of elevators in that building, all with elevator operators, and I'd use his every single time.

Hell yes we need to have elevator operators again.

Comment Re:Instead of technical solutions (Score 3, Interesting) 144

The religion of Islam creates many terrorists.

As opposed to freedom fighters who blow people up in order to "liberate" them?

It's not the religion of Islam but the religion of violence - the idea that the ends justify the means - that creates terrorists. And violence is pretty much universally worshipped on Earth, in forms ranging all the way from ritualistic animal sacrifice to all-out war. Our future depends on if it's a true universal constant or a mere option that could potentially be unchosen before our luck runs out and we wipe ourselves out.

Comment Re:couldn't hurt (Score 4, Insightful) 218

First, I am quite capable of retrieving the page content via telnet.

But did you? Y'know, to practice your skills?

Second, the page content was actually deliberately formatted to be interpreted with a web browser. A whole layer of material was added to the content specifically to make that convenient.

So your convenience matters, but other people should "exercise their language skills". How utterly unsurprising.

In what way am I using grammar or spelling to silence people? I am trying to encourage grammar and spelling, so that people can have a voice. You are trying to encourage people to engage in the digital equivalent of baby talk, so that they can never express a complex thought. You've got it completely backwards, fucko. You want to disempower. I want to empower.

Really? Because this is what you actually wrote: "Instead of expecting people to exercise their language skills, we're just enabling stupid people to be more stupid. Their last motivation to learn to speak properly was to communicate with other idiots like themselves, and emoji shits on that."

So tell me: if smileys enable "stupid people" (to use your elitist terminology) to express the thoughts they wish, which is the logical requirement for them to replace some other form of communication, such as written text, in what way would disabling them "empower" said people? All it does is make communication less convenient and thus less frequent. Of course, if that's your actual goal, your means make perfect sense.

If you insist on being a disingenuous douchebag, you can only talk meaningless shit.

I assure you, my dislike of your ideas and attitude is quite sincere. Also, perhaps you shouldn't call people "idiots" and expect a polite response. Douchebags exist to deal with shit, after all.

There's plenty of places where you're not allowed to zoom, yet where emoji can appear.

Such as? And in any case, if they can render modern fonts, which are vector graphics, making said smileys part of the font should actually solve this problem. Or at least let you read the HTML source, which you above imply you're capable of doing.

Seriously, everything you said was wrong. Why do you even bother?

Because malevolent bullcrap like yours is slowing down progress everywhere I look. If you want to communicate solely through six-page hand-bound letters written in calligraphed Oxford English, that is certainly your right. And if someone else chooses to use pornographic smileys to imply that getting a blowjob from a duck turned out to be a bad idea, that's theirs. But no - you insist on having a say on how they may or may not communicate, for their own good of course.

Comment Re:Any shortage of suicide bombers? (Score 1) 144

I don't see how this is a worst threat than the current situation provided there plenty suicide bombers available.

Because brainwashing a suicide bomber takes time and effort and he can only be used once. And during that time and effort, there are lots of fail points and exposure to the authorities finding out about the suicide bomber. An individual hacking an AV to direct an attack doesn't require very much in the way of infrastructure or organization or time or effort beyond what is already in place. And the exploit (and it can hardly even be considered an exploit, since it's basically using an autonomous vehicle for what it was meant to do, which is go from location A to B). A suicide bomber requires an organization. The attack described in the article does not.

Comment Why autonomous cars? (Score 1) 144

I don't mean to pee in the swimming pool here, but why again exactly do we need autonomous cars, and what's the rush? Have we run out of humans to drive cars? Are there not enough vehicles on the road? Is there full employment to the point where we need robots to drive commercial vehicles because there aren't enough drivers? And don't tell me, "it will be safer" because as long as there are human-driven vehicles sharing the road, it won't be one bit safer to have autonomous vehicles in the mix.

Every time I see a AV story here on Slashdot, I get the feeling someone is pushing an agenda. I mean, I don't give a shit one way or the other, but it really seems as though this one example of someone thinking about the possible negative ramifications of autonomous vehicles seems to make a certain group of slashdot readers really mad.

Comment Re:Betteridge's law of headlines says ... no (Score 1) 218

No, there are plenty of utter imbeciles who totally don't get sarcasm.

I get sarcasm perfectly well. Specifically, I get how it can be used as a cover against all criticism while in the process of repeating a lie often enough that it gets accepted as a part of the general culture of a community. MRA bullshit is like furry porn: it spreads and takes root anywhere it's left alone. But that comparison is unfair, since the most disgusting cartoon porn about imaginary creatures is ultimately not harming anyone, it's simply an eyesore, while your crap is directly and actively hindering humanity's efforts to rise above its past and seek a better tomorrow.

You creeps already shat on fedoras, the concept of equality, and any man who's actually been mistreated by a female to the extent of needing help (no, women not liking you is not mistreatment, it's your cue to take a long hard look at yourself), do you absolutely must soil Slashdot too?

Comment Re:couldn't hurt (Score 4, Insightful) 218

You mean an idiot?

No. Why would you think I did? Apart as a rhetorical prelude to your following tirade, of course, but surely an expert communicator like you you could launch into one without having to twist other people's words into a springboard?

Instead of expecting people to exercise their language skills, we're just enabling stupid people to be more stupid.

And believing that you of course used a telnet client to read this discussion and post your message, since a "browser" makes the process easier, thus letting even you manage it? Or does it only apply to skills you already (mistakenly think you) are good at, thus completely coincidentally maximizing the chance that you have an unfair advantage in any interaction?

Grammar and spelling exist to faciliate efficient communication. Trying to use them as a barrier to silence people you dislike for whatever reason means you not only missed the mark, but somehow managed to get a bullseye on your own asshole. Though judging by your attitude, that's easier for you than most.

Their last motivation to learn to speak properly was to communicate with other idiots like themselves, and emoji shits on that.

Smileys are only relevant to written text, not spoken word. Furthermore, unless it's one specific emoji you're concerned about, it's "emojis shit", not "emoji shits".

Meanwhile, they're actually a really shitty way to communicate, because they are far more difficult to tell apart on a small screen than are words.

This is the first and only relevant or even remotely intelligent point you've made in your own sad attempt to communicate. And if you insist on using a mobile device which lacks a zoom function yet supports less-used unicode characters, and use this device for the type of communication where it's critical to be able to tell a smiley from a frowney, it might actually make sense to ask people to take this into account when messaging you. But frankly, that sounds like a very specific corner case that has little if any relevant to designing technical standards for common use.

Emoji are stupid, and people who use them are stupid by extension. But we knew that, because if they weren't, they would have just written what they meant instead of using an ambiguous sad face fucking a duck.

And yet your message would had been improved by replacing most of its content with oral bestiality. At least then you could had blamed it on a computer virus rather than whatever is infecting your central nervous system, and even if you'd failed you'd come across as a mere pervert rather than an arrogant shithead who wants to make life more difficult to other people for the mere reason that you think it should be. It would also have provided more value to this discussion, or any discussion.

Comment Re:long history indeed (Score 1) 584

Then you'll also understand that a) the various regions that make up modern Germany have quite different histories and cultures and b) other than many other countries (USA - independence, France - revolution, etc.) Germany did not have a historic shock moment where enlightenment freedoms were installed into law. The process was more slow, but at the same time more continuous. After the 30-year war, many freedoms were common in (northern) Germany that more catholic nations like Italy or Spain did not possess at that time.

Comment Re:Germany wants a lot... (Score 1) 584

How can you make a comment that is already debunked in the summary posted above?

If you do business in country X, then you need to abide by the laws of country X.

What's so difficult about that? If FB doesn't like it, they are free to do no business in Germany. Nobody forces them to offer their services in Germany.

And yes, forcing FB to remove something is very much what countries can and should do. We can certainly find some country on the planet that doesn't have laws against explicit beastiary porn, maybe some failed african state that simply never thought about such vile things and thus didn't write it down. Post such things to FB from there and point the US minister of justice to it. You think he would say "well, it's legal in where it was posted from, so we should respect freedom of speech"?

Comment Re:The reason for these laws (Score 1) 584

since Germans never had enjoyed free speech rights before. The post-WWII restrictions by the allies were still liberal by historical German standards.

Not entirely true. The free speech rights of the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) were almost identical to the ones we have today. The difference was not in the laws, but in the jurisdiction: Judges at that time would interpret the law differently and passed down harsh judgements especially against left-wing press that would not stand up to scrutiny today, even under the same text.

Today, Germany is largely its own master. It could easily abolish these restrictions on free speech if it wanted to. They are retained because Germans like such restrictions, not because anybody is forcing them to.

That is absolute bullshit.

We don't like such restrictions. We simply have a slightly different culture. Let me explain: There is this saying that goes "your freedom ends where mine begins". In principle, I think everyone agrees on that, meaning that your freedom does not include the right to take away my freedom.
In the USA, the focus is more strongly on your freedom, and I am expected to respect it and be quite tolerant to incursions into my freedom. In much of Europe, the focus is more strongly on my freedom, and you are expected to restrict your actions so you don't interfere with mine.

Metaphorically speaking, if there is a line between your land and my land, in the USA you can lean over the line and put yourself into my space, as long as your feet remain on your land. In Europe, we consider the line to mark an invisible wall and you should keep your arms behind it as well, not just your feet.

Comment Re:long history indeed (Score 1) 584

These specific laws were included in the german post-WW2 legal system on pressure from the allies. So before you americans open your mouth to complain about how we germans don't have freedom of speech, shut it again for one minute and think about the ironic little fact that this part is your doing.

Perhaps it's time for Germany to actually change its "interpretation of freedom of speech" instead of clinging on to what hasn't worked historically.

"for centuries" - go back to history class.

How many centuries? The first real Germany came about in 1871. That's 150 years ago. You say "centuries", which is plural, so you must be referring to at least 200 years.

1815, exactly 200 years ago, was the formation of the German Confederation. A loose coalition of independent states. 4 states and 34 duchies, to be exact. All with their own laws and customs.

Before that, we had the Holy Roman Empire. But you can hardly call that Germany, it included parts of Italy, France, Denmark, Poland, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands, Slowakia and a bunch of other places. But the HRE was never a unified entity, it was more like the British Commonwealth - a formal head of state, and that's basically it.

Promising costs nothing, it's the delivering that kills you.

Working...