Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:crap adds (Score 1) 539

I actually held off on disabling ads on Slashdot for several years, they originally didn't bother me and sometimes had things I wanted to know more about (hmm new model of firewall, could be worth a look). Then Dice took over and I started seeing ads that belonged on Yahoo or AOL (doctors hate him, yes that one), and I disabled advertising because it started to be distracting and took away from the site.

That is a problem with a lot of these mass advertisement campaigns, they do not take into account the website audience and shotgun junk all over the place and all over the page. If they had kept their readers in mind and tried to focus on products they might be interested in they would have a higher click through rate and the readers would be happier too. But instead right now it is bottom of the barrel ad campaigns and I am suspecting a below average success rate compared to other sites even. #1 in marketing: know your audience.

Comment Re:One question (Score 1) 539

Well that explains the distorted view that advertisers have of the web, fortunately they are wrong.

People go to websites to view real content, meaning the article, blog, video or whatever drew them to the site. They do not go to view ads, they did not come to learn yet another weird trick or to hear about some jagoffs bookshelf full of Lamborghinis, they are there for the actual content whether it be a cooking recipe or a article about the mating habits of the western washed up celebrity (hominis nonerectus) it is the real content that drives people to visit.

I have often heard people compare their websites to their living room, which I suppose is as apt an analogy as any. They are producing the content and paying the costs so it is their choice what they will do with their website. People will come to visit if the content is good, but even then there is only so much the visitor will tolerate before deciding to remedy the situation via either ad block or just not visiting. So I would suggest any actual content producers out there take a good look at their advertising partners. Because if you allow them to come in your living room and shit all over the place, don't be surprised if your guests leave.

Comment Re:Why a surprise? (Score 3, Informative) 464

Nice straw man fallacy!

The straw man argument was from TFA: Julia Wolfson. "This has been one of the biggest arguments against smart guns, that people just don't want them. This research shows otherwise." No, the biggest argument was concerning the trigger laws that New Jersey and other areas set up mandating the smart gun technology on all firearms after it became available anywhere. Lawrence Keane, of the National Sport Shooting Foundation, said "If people think there's a market for these products, then the market should work," in other words absent these laws the gun industry would endorse the further development of smart gun technology.

Incidentally during the whole fight back in 2014 about smart gun technology one was reviewed. They found it prone to misfire and slow to start up among other things. Obviously not a proven technology as of yet.

Comment Re:Who? What? (Score 5, Insightful) 432

Trying to vaguely synthesize a "problem" may work in other circles, but hard science doesn't want to hear that there's "some kind of thing going on, maybe", it wants facts, places, numbers, reproducible events, documentation, data, something real, something tangible.

Hell I would settle for some correlation at least:

Is the rate of sexual harassment higher for $field than it is for the general population?

If it is then maybe there is more research to be done to discover why and try to correct it.
If not then there is not a problem in $field, there is an asshole problem. And you deal with the asshole problem by getting rid of the assholes and not blaming the field the assholes happen to work in.
(disclaimer: I am not calling anyone from TFA an asshole, just stating in general)

Comment Re:Can I be the first to say "Duh"? (Score 1) 155

I don't really see us getting back to the moon within my lifetime (much less mars) without a very substantial budget increase.

Then the problem is easy to solve. with Nasa's recent announcement:

  1. Reorganize Nasa as a military branch
  2. Retitle the Planetary Defense Office as the Planetary Defense Force as suggested by Slashdot user hey!
  3. Designate Mars as an ideal forward observation post
  4. Watch that sweet sweet defense spending money roll in (bonus if they Photoshop a turban onto an asteroid)

Comment Re:There is only one goal (Score 1) 555

Provided that code is even accessible.

Oh everyone knows it won't be, it will be copyrighted to hell and back and DMCA notices will fly everywhere the first time some tries to tinker with the electronic portions of these "smart guns". And any owner will have to take their weapons to authorized gunsmiths to have repairs done, even if the failing is in the mechanical portion of the gun. I firmly believe there will be a good amount of rent seeking in this new "smart gun" market, if it ever comes to pass.

Comment Re:Obama, Champion of the Firearms Industry (Score 2) 555

I am not a lawyer, and obviously neither are you because your pie in the sky idea of liability does not even come close to reality.

I would not be surprised if, some day, liability for firearms had an attractive-nuisance provision associated with it, and that the legitimate owner of the firearm would have to maintain insurance on that firearm that covered the liability of that firearm's misuse until that firearm were legally transferred to a new owner or until that firearm were documented as destroyed.

An attractive nuisance is defined as anything that could be considered to attract children onto someones property, for example pools or fountains. Unless firearms owners are storing their weapons by strewing them about in the back yard or have a sign up saying "Guns are here" I doubt a case could be made that it is an attractive nuisance.

And worse for the firearm owner, if that firearm is stolen, unlike vehicles that are generally stolen to be disassembled for parts, the liability of the firearm would probably never go away and if they discontinued insurance then they would still have a degree of liability for what transpired for a firearm that they let get out of their possession.

What you think will happen here is tantamount to charging a car theft victim for a bank robbery committed by the thief, or a phone theft victim for a drug deal arranged with their stolen cell phone. That is not how liability works and unless the courts go pants on head retarded it will not work that way in the foreseeable future.

The biggest problem is the lack of personal responsibility at every stage of the process, right up to the legitimate owner. Absolutely there are owners that are quite responsible, but on the other hand we routinely hear of incidents where children have shot people, be it a young friend, young sibling, a parent, or in extreme cases a firearms instructor with an UZI, because firearms have been left out where people too young to understand their usage manage to get a hold of them.

Leaving weapons out where children can access them is actually already a crime and negligent owners are being prosecuted for it. Case in point is thiscase where a father left his weapon rolled up on top of the fridge and the child wanted to play cops and robbers. It is a tragic story but the father is responsible and should be charged. I am not sure how you think this shows a lack of responsibility.

We routinely hear of people's homes being broken into and their firearms stolen.

I am not what responsibility you are expecting burglary victims to hold for the theft of their belongings, do we hold big screen owners responsible when their house is robbed as well?

We routinely hear of spousal shootings.

Again we hold people responsible for that as well, shooting your spouse is against the law and people go to jail for that.

We routinely hear of gun-cleaning accidents where someone didn't clear the chamber after removing the magazine.

If a person injures someone while cleaning and is found to be negligent they can and have been charged. However if it is a true accident then there may be no charges because it was an accident, same as if a person accidentally hit a child with a car. Honestly it seems you want gun owners to be under a different standard under the law than is applicable to any other group. I would caution you that unequal treatment for groups was done in the past and it was as wrong then as it is now.

Comment Re:Hmm... (Score 1) 555

A toddler took a gun from his mother's purse and shot her in the head killing her. With smart gun technology that would might not have happened.

With proper gun safety that would of never happened. With "smart gun" technology it might not have happened, do not think this "smart gun" technology is the be all solution to weapon handling. Do not store weapons within reach of children, "Smart gun" or not. The mother's death was entirely her own fault, not the weapon's and not the toddler's.

Comment Re:...dangerous ideas... (Score 1) 563

I think you are confused about something.

Not really confused but was referring to the period in time where we had a portion of our elected leaders and population looking for the "red menace" everywhere including underneath our beds, most famously known for Senator McCarthy though the HUAC is also well known from there. The period gave rise to the term McCarthyism, which is what I was referring to.

Comment How many more? (Score 1) 563

How many more of our rights will our leaders call to sacrifice because of this boogy man ISIS? We already had our president call for the suspension of the second amendment based on some extrajudicial watch list. And now we have Eric Posner arguing to suspend the First amendment right of freedom of association and speech. The fourth has long since been ignored with the NSA blanket surveillance, so what is left for them to sacrifice?

Will we sacrifice the sixth and suspend trial by jury for those on the no fly list? After all they are on the list so they must be guilty.
How about tossing the eighth and throwing those newly convicted terrorists into the Iron maiden, bring back a little old school punishment.
Perhaps we should toss the third and start placing NSA agents inside peoples homes, to make sure ISIS doesn't get in.
Or we could ignore the fifth and give the people on the watch list a nice round of waterboarding so they confess and forgo the bother of a trial.

I mean when will it stop for these people? Throw up ISIS or Al Queda and our leaders seem to climb all over each other to rip up our bill of rights. When did we elect a bunch of gutless cowards who would gladly sacrifice our constitution to help them sleep at night? This has to stop, we should face tragedies head on while holding on to our beliefs, not throw away our rights at the earliest convenience.

Comment Re:Just WTF is he referring to? (Score 3, Funny) 563

Osiris: "So apparently ISIS just bombed another hospital and the boys asked me if it was your time of the month."
Isis: "You know it wasn't me honey, I was busy playing fallout."
Osiris:"yes I know, but this is getting embarrassing. I keep on telling everyone it wasn't you but the rumors keep coming."
Isis:"That's not my fault dear."
Osiris: "...You know, you could always change your name."
Isis: "No way! Why should I change? They're the ones who suck."

Slashdot Top Deals

10 to the minus 6th power Movie = 1 Microfilm

Working...