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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:Volvo says it will be liable for any accidents (Score 2) 154

If someone is driving a brand new car right off the lot and the breaks fail, causing a fatal accident, does the CEO do hard time now? In that case, it's pretty clear that the defect is the responsibility of the manufacturer, but it would be far more likely that there would be a civil lawsuit. So when Volvo says they will be liable, they're talking about civil and not criminal liability.

Comment Sounds like an argument for government research (Score 2) 345

The dwindling effectiveness of antibiotics is a public safety issue. No big company is going to want to take the hit and invest millions of dollars into developing new antibiotics when the return is likely to be a long way off and isn't guaranteed at all. For things like this, it makes sense to use tax money to fund research and then contract companies to develop medicines (or, god forbid, just build some government facilities to develop and produce them there).

Comment Is tension really important in a documentary? (Score 1) 289

Tension makes things more interesting, but if you set out to document something that's happening *right now* (as opposed to, say, some event in history that you already know was really tense), the *correct* way to document it is to document the truth. This is actually the responsible thing to do.

A few years ago, there was some indie game making contest reality show, and the people doing the show decided to *create drama* by asking one team if they felt that the other team was at a disadvantage because they had more women. As I recall, the developers wouldn't have it, and eventually a bunch of people walked off the set.

If you're documenting something, injecting tension where none exists is shitty journalism. If you're reviewing a documentary, demanding that the creator of the documentary inject tension where none exists is also shitty journalism.

Comment Some poeple just love huge CoCs. (Score 5, Insightful) 358

Some people really love gigantic CoCs. It seems like big CoCs are the in thing right now, but personally, I find massive CoCs to be uncomfortable.

Dick jokes aside, while I'm in favor of having some community expectations of conduct, I'm not in favor of building a huge body of rules to cover every single situation. What you need are some simple rules ("conduct yourself with courtesy and professionalism", "don't be an asshole", etc) and a group of trustworthy moderators who enforce those rules fairly regardless of the political views of the person the rules are being applied to.

Even if your rules are well-intentioned, the trouble is that the larger and more specific the rule set, the more easily one clique or another will be able to manipulate those rules to their advantage. It's better, as a moderator, to be able to identify individuals who are toxic and remove them from the community than have a set of arbitrary and overly specific rules that you'll ultimately fail to enforce fairly. All too often, you'll end up deciding that you *want* to get rid of a particular community member due to them having an overall negative impact on the community, and then watching them like a hawk so that you can ban them for the tiniest violation of your rule set, all the while your regular (and less toxic) users are constantly committing tiny rules violations themselves.

To be honest, large rule sets *invite* toxicity, because a) people tend to see them as a challenge, and b) some people realize they're part of the in-crowd and can get away with flouting the rules while other people who *aren't* part of the in-crowd get banned for small infractions.

And this is to say nothing of CoCs which *aren't* well-intentioned. The GitHub projects CoC, for instance, explicitly carved out rights for people to bully others based on race, sex, orientation, etc, simply based on whether that person is part of the majority with respect to those particular attributes. I'm all for disallowing gendered and racial harassment, but I have to suspect the motives of people writing a CoC that gives certain people carte blanche to engage in that kind of harassment. Harassment is *ever a good thing*. You aren't losing anything by disallowing *all of it*.

Comment Squeenix has lost their touch. (Score 3, Interesting) 171

There was a time, back in the SNES and PSX era, that Squaresoft could do no wrong. That time has passed. Their new games are a mess, and they've realized that the only way they're going to stay in business is to remake their old ones. That being said, they're fixing to fuck up FF7 the same way they've fucked up their more recent offerings.

I think part of the problem may be that Squeenix doesn't have the slightest fucking clue about the American market. As far as I can tell, they're trying to go for the action gamer market and sell a gazillion copies the way the big third person action franchises do, but by and large, those people aren't really the ones who are interested in JRPGs. And in the process of *trying* to appeal to that market, they alienate their core audience (most of which has walked away by this point).

Now, it's entirely possible that the JRPG core audience just isn't big enough to support the development of AAA titles, but I judging by their surprise at how well Bravely Default did in the states, I have a feeling they're vastly underestimating how many people would be interested in a more classic JRPG feel.

In practice, failures in system development, like unemployment in Russia, happens a lot despite official propaganda to the contrary. -- Paul Licker