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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Are you saying that criminals don't exist? (Score 1) 156

by aardvarkjoe (#49755047) Attached to: 'Prisonized' Neighborhoods Make Recidivism More Likely

Well, if we eliminate all the people who just wanted to get high quietly in the privacy of their own home and provided treatment instead of prison time for all the people who are in there as the result of alcohol and drug abuse, we could probably close all but one existing prison.

Even if we just include federal/state prisons, there are about 1,800 existing prisons. Do you seriously think that nonviolent drug use and the results of drug and alchohol abuse account for 99.94% of all of our prisoners?

Comment: Re:That is _not_ an organ (Score 1) 73

by aardvarkjoe (#49751859) Attached to: Musical Organ Created From 49 Floppy Disk Drives

"Organ[o]" is a Greek word meaning "Instrument" and, in Greek, a "musical organ" can be any "musical instrument"

Which might be relevant if we were speaking Greek rather than English.

More relevant is that "organ" is used to refer to a lot of keyboard instruments that are intended to imitate (to some extent) the sound of a pipe organ. Whether or not this particular instrument falls into that category or not is probably largely a matter of opinion.

Comment: So this means ... (Score 1) 82

... All affected members will receive letters of apology, offering two years of free credit monitoring and identity threat protection as compensation, ...

So they're saying that they have such monitoring/protection, but members who aren't explicitly paying extra for such monitoring/protection aren't being protected from identity theft in any way?

Somehow, I don't find this surprising. But I'm a bit surprised that they'd admit it so blatantly and openly.

(Actually, I'm a bit dubious about their implicit claim to have such monitoring/protection already. But it's fairly common for companies to make such claims for PR purposes, without bothering to actually implement what they're claiming to supply until something like this hits them. Maybe they had another similar incident happen sometime in the past, and are finally getting around to doing something about it?)

(And what exactly does "identity threat protection" mean? Google doesn't seem to have any matches for that phrase, and automatically replaces it with "identity theft protection", which doesn't sound like the same thing at all. ;-)

Comment: Re:Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers (Score 1) 201

Only restitution?

First, what's proper restitution for being compelled to post something on a Facebook post? I don't think I'd accept $20K to allow somebody else to put something I disliked on my Facebook account, myself.

A formal apology. If you can show that you suffered any real damages from the false facebook post, including your time or reputation, then you would be entitled to just compensation for those.

Second, the guy had to spend money and time to get the suit going, and had no certainty of getting anything. Offering restitution only (and then only when winning) means that it's most likely the best move to just let the police do whatever to you without recourse.

Your legal costs should of course be included in that restitution.

The legal system should not exist to enrich someone out of proportion to how they were harmed. If people won't pursue justice if they don't have the chance of hitting a big jackpot, then it's probably not very important to them after all.

Comment: Re:The "edge" of the universe? (Score 1) 64

Definition 1) Farther

Heh; I think you've got it. ;-)

This is one of the favorite "language peevery" examples that get discussed often in (English) language forums (or fora if you prefer ;-). The confusion about any purported difference goes back to before there were any actual English dictionaries, and probably 99% of the world's native speakers of English treat them as synonyms. The few that don't can't hardly agree about what their "correct" usages should be. But that doesn't stop such people from harrassing the rest of us about our "misusage". Mostly, it's just a thing they can feel superior about, while the rest of us casually ignore them.

It is a bit curious to see such peevery pop up in a discussion in which General Relativity pretty much rules. Trying to make a strict distinction between distance and time in such discussions is mostly just funny, as well as a signal that the writer lacks understanding of something important to the discussion. But language peevery is rarely based on reality; it's more about some small crowd's attempts to impose strict rules on a language with many dialects and hundreds of millions of speakers.

Now let's all join in singing a round of "Farther along" ... (in which the phrase clearly refers to time. ;-)

Comment: Re:The song remains the same (Score 1) 201

by jc42 (#49716881) Attached to: Baton Bob Receives $20,000 Settlement For Coerced Facebook Post

Who pays then, when the government elected by the people do misdeeds?

So where in the US are the police elected by the local citizens? I've never heard of this happening. It certainly hasn't been the practice in or near any place I've ever lived.

I've also never seen any candidate in any election running on a promise to do "misdeeds", so I've never actually been able to vote for or against a candidate on that basis. It'd be interesting to know where this is done, and why it isn't done where I've lived.

Comment: The "edge" of the universe? (Score 0) 64

So how do they know that the "background" microwaves are from the edge of the universe? I thought that the primordial microwaves are scattered throughout the universe, so what we see when we look in some direction is the sum of all the background microwaves coming from that direction.

If we're actually seeing the edge, doesn't that shoot down the idea that the universe doesn't actually have an edge, and everywhere appears to be at the "center" of the universe? How was this idea disproved? I seem to have missed the discovery of an actual edge, somehow.

Comment: Re:Responsibility lies with the Taxpayers (Score 1) 201

Judges, most likely.

You've already opened a huge can of worms by giving the money to one undeserving party. Just because there might be problems to resolve with a better system doesn't mean that there's no point in instituting the better system. Say that they get it wrong half the time. That's still better than today, when they get it wrong every single time.

"To take a significant step forward, you must make a series of finite improvements." -- Donald J. Atwood, General Motors