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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Second hand view from a teacher (Score 1) 336

by TheCarp (#48663899) Attached to: Ars: Final Hobbit Movie Is 'Soulless End' To 'Flawed' Trilogy

See, his view is that the big problem with the UK education system and boys is that they lose all interest in reading for pleasure right around that 10-11 age range. This is, in part, because the generally approved reading materials in schools have a heavy female tilt (lots of teddy bears and thinking about feelings, not so much on the swords, dragons and robots), but there's not actually a mandatory reading list at this age and teachers (if they're willing to stand up to the senior management in their school if needed) have quite a lot of leeway.

I don't think this is so much about a male/female thing as much as, this is about the age range where teachers start really wanting to "expose" kids to the changes that are comming in their life and give them through story the context to deal with the oncoming turmoil of the teenage years...and frankly.... I think that desire ends up overshadowing other concerns.

It took a bit longer than that but, I can say, that by mid high school the readings we were being assigned were, on the whole, quite boring, and as I went to an all boys school, they were very much geared towards maturing boys.

Frankly if not for a few books, including 1984, brave new world, and some really excellent classes on Shakespear that made his works entirely approachable and enjoyable, I might have never picked up a book for entertainment purposes again. In fact, I didn't for at least 5 years after leaving school....and prior to "young adult reading", as a child, I actually did read for enjoyment and even picked up books on my own outside of class. Hell I read Moby Dick (unabridged) in the 4th grade... my teacher actually tried to dissuede me, but I took it out of the library and did my book report on it anyway. The report sucked, I totally missed many of the important themes of the book and really only was able to focus on some of the action but you know.... I still enjoyed the hell out of it, it still made me want to read more rather than less.

That said, it does seem that a lot more adult women read books for pleasure than adult men, but even that isn't completely cut and dry.... I have seen some of the books some of my female friends read and, they have admitted in their own words that visual porn does nothing for them, and that some of their books really are little more than porn with the same sort of thinly disguised excuse of a plot as the movies about which cities "Debbie Does" (side note: get off my lawn).

Now, I don't really think that "women get their porn in text" explains the difference in at least percieved (I haven't looked for numbers) rates of reading for enjoyment between men and women however; if those differences are real, I would not be entirely shocked to find out that some of the underlying reasons for it turn out to be related.

I probably would be only very slightly less unshocked to find out the differences have no biological basis at all and are primarily culturally driven.

Comment: Re:But customers should be told *at booking time* (Score 4, Insightful) 290

by TheCarp (#48662133) Attached to: Hotel Group Asks FCC For Permission To Block Some Outside Wi-Fi

That sounds fine to me.

Also I would like to mention.... the reality is they can already require their guests to agree as a condition of their stay that they will not use external networks. They can already buy equipment to detect and find devices using wifi..... seems they can already handle this by hunting down their own guests and charging them fines and or kicking them out.

Thing is, they know that if they start doing that, they are going to piss off customers. What they really want is stuff to just "not work" so it doesn't look like it is their fault. They don't want you to really know that it is them doing it; they want their customer to get frustrated with other options and grudgingly use their service instead..,..because then they are not the bad guy, or at least....not openly.

What this really is, is them wanting the government to sanction their underhanded activity because doing what they want out in the open is going to look bad.

Comment: Re:Fine (Score 1) 290

by TheCarp (#48660959) Attached to: Hotel Group Asks FCC For Permission To Block Some Outside Wi-Fi

In principle I agree, in practice, not so much.

For them to actually "do it on their premises" is fine with me, but only if there is no way a person outside their premises or within the publicly accessible entranceway to their premises are under its effect; even if they are simply walking the paths around the outside of the building.

So basically, sure, if they want to shield their entire building from outside RF, with the exception of the entranceway, and as long as its clearly labeled for anyone entering to expect their devices to not work...then fine. However, they don't want to do that at all, they don't want to break cell phones or have to build internal towers with hard lines out, no, they want to just run active jammers out of some sense of monetary entitlement.

Comment: Re:Simple answer... (Score 1) 482

by TheCarp (#48651777) Attached to: Colorado Sued By Neighboring States Over Legal Pot

I am not questioning the concept of lines, I am asking why this line even needs to be drawn.

Don't you think that before drawing lines there should be a reason? I happen to think so. Wht the fuck justifies these laws? I see no more reason to arrest a person with 100 lbs of pot than to arrest a person with a cup of coffee. I see these laws doing little more than creating black markets for no benefit.

Drug laws have not even been shown to reduce drug use, if they don't do that, then what the fuck point do they even have? If they don't reduce use, then isn't having them drive people to worst drugs, to more underground production....bad. If they can't even do the ONE good thing they intended?

Comment: Re:Simple answer... (Score 1) 482

by TheCarp (#48651755) Attached to: Colorado Sued By Neighboring States Over Legal Pot

I didn't ask if the form of he law was unusual. I asked what supporters of such a law what they expect it would accomplish, and what they imagine they are protecting us from.

It seems pretty clear to me the ONLY effect such a law will have is to continue a policy of allowing gangs to flousrish and creating black markets for them. I see no benefti at all to such a law in the first place and no danger that it protects anyone from.

Comment: Re:What took them so long? (Score 1) 212

by TheCarp (#48646389) Attached to: Cyberattack On German Steel Factory Causes 'Massive Damage'

Well hindsight is always 20/20. Few people look into securing their houses what haven't been robbed or known someone who was. Nobody benefits from this sort of attack; like you say, its a motive issue. Why does the production network need so much proection? Up until now it hasn't. There was nothing of any value there for anyone....only of theoretical value.

The only people who carry out this sort of attack are the ones who work for armies because they don't have to worry about personal reprisal and they are not interested in any sort of profit. Its just a game to them; and they will work to whatever goal they are told to.

Its the rise of this "cyberwar" bs that creates the danger in the first place. The only result is going to be to hurt some insurance company that is going to pay, or the steel factory, but more will be built. However, within the context of a cyber war group this is a demonstration of effecitveness or even a win for some petty head of state.

This is one more area where I was happier with the old threat of money hungry gangs and the occasional rambunctious kid than the massive politically directed machine that is supposed to protect me from them but ends up just being bigger, badder, and more capricious versions of the same.

Comment: Re:Grinch is not a flaw - has no CVE!!! (Score 2) 118

by TheCarp (#48633799) Attached to: Grinch Vulnerability Could Put a Hole In Your Linux Stocking

It still doesn't take too terribly much to get around minor issues like that. I actually did that as part of a class once where the instructor made all the groups setup guest accounts with a known password and encouraged us to hack eachother's machines.

One group had accidently made /home owned by guest. Whoops. That was some fun figure out how to exploit.
I moved their home dirs (write permission on the parent dir), created new ones (ditto), then dropped a .profile (or whatever korn shell uses, they made us all use it for the class) which would move their bashrc back into place, exec it, and create a setuid shell for me as their user in a .directory owned by guest ;)

Hillariously, they only ever logged in as root so it never worked....that is, until the instructor got on there to prepare the class final project "everyone's system got hacked last night, you need to get back in and find out what they did".... well he found a bit of what I did and thought that the team whose server it was had found out about the upcoming project and gave them an extra hard problem that they were unable to solve lol!

We all had a good laugh about it later lol.

Comment: Re:Grinch is not a flaw - has no CVE!!! (Score 1) 118

by TheCarp (#48633719) Attached to: Grinch Vulnerability Could Put a Hole In Your Linux Stocking

I think the ONLY interesting point they have is that there are environments where a lot of people have wheel for one reason or another, or where wheel may be even given out by default. In such an environment, then installing this PackageKit software allows anyone to install software.... as expected.

This really is some of the dumbest clickbait disguiesed as a vulnerability that I have ever seen.

Best solution...don't put every account in wheel, and um, don't install PackageKit...unless this is what you want....perfectly reasonable on some systems like desktops.

Comment: Re:Simple answer... (Score 5, Insightful) 482

by TheCarp (#48633547) Attached to: Colorado Sued By Neighboring States Over Legal Pot

But if 100g or less is legal, why is 101g illegal? What is the purpose of such a law?
What do you actually expect it is protecting us from?

Do you feel some responsibility to violent gangs like....we created them with bad laws, and now we have to nurture them? Why do you not want legal production in the daylight where product can be weighed and inspected. Where people who defraud their customers or violent thugs who would prey on honest businessmen and their wares can be brought to justice instead of left out in the cold to the wolves....over what?

Seriously....what the fuck justifies arrest and incarceration over pot? What justifies AT ALL interfering with the lives of consenting adults over this flower? I really want to know because in 20 years of being a pot smoker the worst negatives I have seen have all been the result of these stupid laws.

Honest people being robbed and held at gunpoint with no recourse, nobody to call. Dishonest dealers who rip off their customers. Families torn apart, jobs lost, all over... some mad obsession with moralistic laws against what is, at worst, a minor vice.

Comment: Re: signal blocking (Score 2, Interesting) 110

by TheCarp (#48624847) Attached to: RFID-Blocking Blazer and Jeans Could Stop Wireless Identity Theft

I have a friend who is just flabbergasted at the idea that I sometimes just turn my ringer off and don't take calls.

I like to be able to take calls or to make them when I want to. I like having a mobile gps device and all that.... um, I like having a phone, but sometimes, I don't want to be disturbed, and sometimes Iforget to turn that off for a day or two...oops... but I can still call out and thats what I pay the bill for.....

Comment: Decent backpack actually (Score 1) 130

by TheCarp (#48620847) Attached to: Research Highlights How AI Sees and How It Knows What It's Looking At

I know how they created the images, so I know its not really an image of a backpack really so much as static that has been messed with by someone in photoshop....however, if you showed me that, backpack would be high on my list of guesses.

That one really does look to me like someone washed out an image of a backpack with static.

Comment: Re:What? (Score 1) 440

by TheCarp (#48612237) Attached to: Federal Court Nixes Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance

This was the whole point with the NDAA too.... when you allow someone to decide that a person can be denied a trial indefinitely because the president said the magic word "Terrorist" then; in point of fact, nobody had any rights at all except the President anymore.

If you are denied your right to face your accusations in court and state your case, then you have no rights at all. If a man can decide when the law applies and when it doesn't, then the law is, in fact, not the highest power in the land and....its all a pack of lies.

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Working...