Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Who says it serves no purpose? (Score 1) 215

by MightyYar (#48929325) Attached to: Facebook Censoring Images of the Prophet Muhammad In Turkey

What offends you may not offend me. And vice-versa.

Yes, I understand that a picture of Mohammad is not universally offensive. But it is deeply offensive to many, and there really isn't any reason to use a picture of him unless your intent is to offend. If your goal is to get as many users as possible in Turkey, then having pictures of Mohammad on there is going to make it hard for you to reach your goal.

Law that bans something based upon the idea that some individual or group simply finds the behavior objectionable is the very worst kind of law, utterly devoid of consideration or others, while absolutely permeated in self-indulgence.

I agree with all of what you said, but I wasn't talking about laws. I was saying that it makes a lot of sense for Facebook not to allow pictures of Mohammad in Turkey. Just like they don't allow boobies in the USA.

Comment: Re:Maybe if Adobe fixed their broken updater... (Score 1) 158

by lgw (#48929217) Attached to: Adobe's Latest Zero-Day Exploit Repurposed, Targeting Adult Websites

Just because the shady back-alley freeware does it, does not in any way make a good excuse for a AAA software vendor to do so

And AAA vendors don't. Adobe products are simply shady back-alley freeware as proven by their installer. Java too, of course.

Comment: Re:Simple (Score 2) 215

by whathappenedtomonday (#48928049) Attached to: Facebook Censoring Images of the Prophet Muhammad In Turkey

by following turkey's authoritarian freedom crushing instructions that would otherwise get facebook banned, facebook remains influential in turkey in a positive way, in more subtle ways

Not a very nuanced view, and even complex matters can be surprisingly simple if you have values. -- "by following turkey's authoritarian freedom crushing instructions that would otherwise get facebook banned," facebook remains in business there. This and nothing else matters to corporations. Please don't pretend that FBs mission is to propagate free speech, because that would be ... well, a blockheaded black-or-white kinda view. FB censors when it fits its business model (see the " pictures of breasts" argument). FB is accepting and taking part in what you call turkey's authoritarian freedom crushing instructions. Because they don't have values, as Zuckerberg likes to suggest, but business interests. Once Turkey blocks FB (Twitter etc.), people who value free speech will circumvent those blocks, as they have always done, but it would hurt FBs business.

Comment: Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government (Score 1) 380

Wrong, completely wrong. For instance, if the majority of the collective wanted to force every single female US citizen to have at least one abortion in her life time if she should get pregnant and for all men to purchase, practice with, and keep ready at all time, military style riffles and handguns, the US government would be beyond their abilities in making these laws.

Wrong, I'm holding in my hands an amendment mandating every single female US citizen to have an abortion immediately. As soon as its passes it is the law. I also have one about reducing gravity, which I suspect will be more popular.

there was no "intent" beyond creating a stable, balanced government that could self-modify.

  don't know why you brought up intent, I certainly didn't. But the only way to self modify is to amend the constitution granting the government more powers or taking them away.

because clueless people think it is supposed to do crap it was never intended to do.

Clearly this was a comment by someotherdumbass then.

Glad you have heard about amendments though, amazing power they have, assuming it is the will of the people. We can also amend ourselves hte ability to not be able to amend our constitution further, also we can amend ourselves into a communist dictatorship.

You can walk into a sport bar and hear how some team could have won a game or what will make them winners (usually something stupid like catch the ball or something). But that doesn't make them authoritative of correct.

True, but this is a particualrly loud, if inconvenient voice. Osama won in 2001, it may have been a pyrrhic victory for him personally, but if you didn't notice the insane increase in police power, TSA power, FBI power before and after you must have been under a rock. Osama scared people.

You are taking people that people do not know or understand the purpose of the federal government.

I'm talking about the citizens of the United States, who are the only thing that actually matters. Right or wrong, we define the government. You can get hung up on the lawyering of the process, and we can debate what specific things you think the government does that it is forbidden to do, but I suspect all you'll end up doing is having the government changed to the will of those same people.

Comment: Re:Up next, automatic intelligence rating... (Score 4, Insightful) 181

by lgw (#48927721) Attached to: Anonymous No More: Your Coding Style Can Give You Away

For lack of mod points let me just say: beautiful!

It's like this in any engineering discipline:
* The apprentice doesn't do things by the book, for he thinks himself clever
* The journeyman does everything by the book, for he has learned the world of pain the book prevents
* The master goes beyond the book, for he understand why every rule is there and no longer needs the rules

Or put another way - the apprentice thinks he knows everything, the journeyman known how little he knows, the master knows everything in the field, and still knows how little he knows.

Comment: Re:Overblown nonsense. (Score 1) 99

by mrchaotica (#48927695) Attached to: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In the Public Domain

Now, I grant you that most an entire generation having grown up with the idea that it's ok to steal IP, and the toxic idiocy of the "information wants to be free" crowd additionally muddying the waters, and the proliferation of people who just can't seem to keep their word, one might have reason to be cynical about this.

You've gone off the rails here. The "information wants to be free" crowd thinks as such precisely because information naturally (i.e., without the interference of law) is in the Public Domain to begin with. Creating a strawman argument claiming that they'd somehow twist that position to justify stealing from the Public Domain is not only offensive, but patently absurd.

Comment: Re:Poor Alan Kay (Score 1) 198

by lgw (#48927583) Attached to: Bjarne Stroustrup Awarded 2015 Dahl-Nygaard Prize

It's a problem when the default ASSERT macro expands to code with such #ifdefs (no joke - that was the norm everywhere I worked with C/C++). At one place it got so bad that we made using the ASSERT macro a firing offense (not sure why we couldn't just fix the macro, some corporate thing no doubt).

And I've been there and done that with the "no resource leaks" in C++. When you provide library code that's easier to use than doing it the wrong way, it's easy to enforce the standard in code reviews (since then it's only the new guy who hasn't seen how easy the tools are yet).

For example, if you have a good FileHandle class, it's simple to educate people to write FileHandle foo = fopen(...); instead of FILE, and then that's it, the file closes when you exit scope. Works perfectly as a member variable as well - no need to remind people that the destructor isn't called if the constructor throws, as members are always cleaned up.

Comment: Re:Ah, Democracy (Score 1) 215

by MightyYar (#48927143) Attached to: Facebook Censoring Images of the Prophet Muhammad In Turkey

I'm familiar with it, but I'm not seeing the problem in this particular case. How big of a hardship is it to ask users not to do something that serves no purpose other than to offend? I'd like to see boobies on Facebook, but I'm not unduly burdened by the hardship of finding boobies elsewhere.

Comment: Re:Zone of lawlessness: The U.S. government (Score 1) 380

Very clearly the constitution says the US government is supposed to do what the collective we want it to do, there was no "intent" beyond creating a stable, balanced government that could self-modify. Honestly intent doesn't matter for shit, the guys that wrote it are dead. I would argue in most cases that it is working as designed, and that the people bitching and moaning are simply not in the majority and delivering a clear enough message on priorities. When I leave my young urban mecca and visit more traditional venues, all I hear is how the Obama isn't doing enough to stop crime, terrorists, drugs, etc.; how he's weakened the government and pussified the United States, that we need a republican back in there to kick out the muslims and put some order in.

These people aren't bothered by spying, torture, or big government interventions. They want safety and they do vote. Their message is no doubt inconsistent, they also complain about "big government" and "regulation" and "wasting money". But listening carefully they don't consider the military, a well stocked police force or an elaborate spy network to be 'wasting" and they consider it a priority. The young urbans, by contrast, largely don't care about this at all, and instead want the government focusing its efforts on other things, mostly economy & socially oriented; listening carefully to them speak they merely have contempt for the police state, they don't vote strongly against it.

Comment: Re: first to post Clockwork Orange (Score 2) 76

by geminidomino (#48926595) Attached to: Inside the Largest Virtual Psychology Lab In the World

And you're exactly the kind of person I'm referring to. If I invite someone over for a dinner party and they decide to piss on my couch "Becuz freedum," then they're going to be removed, bodily, and not allowed back.

Your rights end where others' begin. And I'm not referring to the non-existent "right to not be offended", before you start bleating about that. I'm referring to the game owners' right to decide who they want to invite into their game - aka "Free Association".

If they don't want their game associated with narcissistic little shits (which, let's be frank, LoL et al have been for a long time), they have that right as much to do so, as you do to spew your attention-whoring drivel: they're not stopping you from sharing your inane little opinions, which would be "censorship:" they're just making you get your own fucking microphone.

Comment: Re:Crontratulations to some of you (Score 1) 145

by mrchaotica (#48926093) Attached to: New Google Fiber Cities Announced

Why pay half a million dollars for an 1800 sq foot 30 year old house when you can buy a brand new 3500sq ft house for the same price?

First of all, in-town bungalows are more like 70+ years old. That means they were better-built than new speculative construction and (if built before WWII) have lots of architectural detail that's too expensive to build today. If they're "the same price" (as opposed to "fixer uppers") then they've been renovated and insulated to modern standards, so utilities are cheaper. And most importantly, they're in walkable neighborhoods and close to jobs, so the commute is shorter and the lifestyle is better.

You wold fit in real good with one of my sister's friends who is spending $1400 a month for an 800 sq ft apartment in Brookhaven (just so she can say she lives in Brookhaven) while I pay $1300 a month to rent a 1700 sq ft house out in Woodstock.

Why would I do that when I'm paying about $700 a month for a mortgage (including taxes and insurance) on a 1500 ft^2 house in Atlanta (in the Atlanta city limits, near Decatur)? Granted, my neighborhood isn't as nice as Decatur, but it's a damn sight better than most parts of the suburbs.

By the way, before I bought my house (5 years ago) I lived in an 800 sq ft apartment on the south edge of Buckhead for $800 a month, and I'm sure it'd be no more than $900 or so now... unless that apartment is super-luxurious, your sister's friend is getting ripped off.

Now, I know Google is doing it on a neighborhood basis, so I doubt that most places in these cities won't get it as there are probably not enough people that can afford the $300 up front investment to make a whole neighborhood viable, so it will still be only the rich ones that get this. It just seems to me that picking areas where the income distribution isn't so large would open them up to more customers

Just under half the folks in my neighborhood are yuppies who can easily afford the $70/month gigabit service. The other half are older people who've been here for 20+ years, who would benefit from the free service. In fact, I would say that even having the yuppies create a fund to subsidize the installation fee for the others wouldn't be out of the question. In other words, Google Fiber is a great fit for my neighborhood almost because it's mixed-income. Unless it's competitive (where the rollout is limited to only the top X% of neighborhoods, rather than all that meet some threshold), I can see every neighborhood in the city qualifying except for the real slums, like English Avenue or Mechanicsville.

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn