Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:The Sad Puppies won. (Score 1) 1010

The Sad Puppies won. Yes, they didn't win a single award -- in fact, some really good works lost to No Award, seemingly just to spite them.

But that was the point.

Their stated goal was to prove that there was a group of people out there voting for political reasons and fixing the Hugos... They proved the Sad Puppies point -- that the Hugos are fixed by a group of gatekeepers.

Did they? Or did they prove that the Hugos could be fixed by a group of gatekeepers?
Specifically, we can certainly both agree with the latter - the SPs acted as a group of gatekeepers to fix the nomination slate, proving it was possible. But the fact that they did so easily and completely implies that there was no opposing force. If there already was a group of SJW gatekeepers blocking unapproved nominations, then we would have heard about a nomination battle, no? Each side of gatekeepers would rally supporters trying to control the slate, and this would become more and more public as their forces grow. Most likely, the resulting slate would have some extremist SP nominations and some extremist SJW nominations, no?

Instead, without even a breath of resistance, the SPs controlled the slate. That shows it was possible, but also shows no one was trying to do it before them. The SPs actually proved that there wasn't a group of people fixing the Hugos until they came along.

Comment Re:Fines should be like banks (Score 3, Interesting) 144

When a big Bank breaks the law, they are fined a tiny percentage of the money they made breaking the law. If a Bank makes $500 million illegally, their fine comes out to something like $20 million.

If corporations are people, it should work the other way as well. Therefore, if someone downloads a movie they would have otherwise paid $14 to see in a theater, the fine should be about 2 bucks.

That makes perfect sense. And by the same logic, if someone uploads or shares a movie that a distributor would have paid between $10-20 million for the rights to distribute, the fine should be about $50-150k.

It's important to remember that people aren't being sued for downloading, they're being sued for uploading. And distribution rights are expensive. Apple doesn't pay Warner Brothers $1, once, in exchange for being able to distribute some new song. AMC Theaters doesn't give New Line Cinemas a simple $14 for the rights to show Straight Outta Compton on a thousand screens for the next three months.

Remember back when Michael Jackson bought the distribution rights to the Beatles' catalog for several million? It worked out to around $20-30k per song... which happens to be right about the same amount Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum had to pay for their infringement.

Comment Re:...against a common enemy (Score 2) 147

Incidentally, peeking makes split-screen better for co-op than the alternative of buying two consoles and two copies of the game.

Better? For competitive split screen certainly not. For cooperative games it's tolerable...

Incidentally, reading the comment you're replying to makes Slashdot better for discussions.

Comment Re:Yawn... (Score 1) 226

But the UK does have a "special relationship" with the USA. It's not the kind of deep friendship that politicians like to suggest. (After all, the Americans did have to rebel against British rule; and in 1812 the British burned Washington - hardly the act of a best buddy). No, the British are Washington's most reliable stooges (or "poodles" if you prefer).

I think people tend to look at what has happened in the last 50 years rather than what happened over 200 years ago.

Comment Re:Yawn... (Score 1) 226

"I would also point out, that the fear of extradition to the US is a little baseless, he hasn't actually broken any US laws".

I do hope that was meant as a joke. Surely there isn't anyone left who believes the US government gives a flying fuck about laws? The salient fact is that they hate Assange because he disobliged them and annoyed them. They certainly could create a new law specifically to make him illegal, or retroactively reinterpret some old laws to do the same...

Then why didn't they grab him during the 18 months he was in the UK arguing his appeals before he went into hiding in the embassy? Hell, if the US really is all "fark you, laws," why haven't we sent a SEAL team to invade the embassy? I don't think we're terribly concerned about Ecuador's military might.

Comment Re:What a scumbag (Score 1) 226

do you know the story?

He is in charged of rape, because he didn't use a condom on a occasional sex. That is a crime in Sweden and is equivalent to rape.

Actually, it's that the girl told him "no", then went to sleep, and then, knowing that he didn't have consent, he had sex with her while she was asleep. As Assange's own lawyer, Ben Emmerson, told the UK's High Court:

Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — at least for the purposes of today’s hearing — the validity of Assange’s accusers’ central claims. He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

That's also a crime under UK law as well as US law.

The girl don't even want any charge against him, but it is a public crime, so her opinion doesn't matter.

I have a question for you... Do you believe that, if a guy and girl have consensual sex, and a few days later, the girl has regrets, that travels back in time and it becomes rape? Or would you agree that the crime either occurs or doesn't occur at the moment the act of penetration occurs, and things that happen days later are irrelevant?

Comment Re:Why not start now..and take if further? (Score 1) 373

As a doctor I can say that the "glandular" excuse for being overweight is pure BS. You treat hypothyroid patients with levothyroxine, and they maintain normal weight if they adhere to treatment. Excess weight is 100% due to overeating, eating poor quality food and/or sedentarism.

So, as a doctor, you're saying that untreated hypothyroid patients gain weight, regardless of overeating? Wouldn't someone properly characterize that as a "glandular" issue?

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 223

Yeah I'm just going to leave this here for the world to see, along with the revolutionary omelette maker who responded below.

Or, they could just hit the link to "parent". You don't actually have to do anything to "leave this here", but you believe you do. Narcissism, delusions of grandeur... That fits with your earlier statement calling yourself the "voice of truth" that you believe everyone is trying to silence, as does your paranoia.

In short, you're a looney.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 223

Next, you're going to be outraged about Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal, right? I mean, clearly, you don't understand satire.

You have no idea who Valerie Solanis was, do you. Once again since your memory appears to be a bit flaky, she attempted to murder Andy Warhol and left him permanently mutilated, he was forced to wear a surgical corset for the rest of his life, for which she was diagnosed with chronic paranoid schizophrenia.

And Warhol is mentioned in the SCUM Manifesto? No? Maybe surgical corsets are? No? So what exactly does the attempted murder of Andy Warhol have to do with your insistence that the Ada Initiative should be responding to dead comment threads? Is this just an attempt to tie a schizophrenic who tried to kill someone she thought was stealing from her to feminism as a whole? Of course it is.

The conference organizer apparently is, since he disagrees with her characterization of what happened. Unless you're calling him a liar now. And you must be, or else you've just proved my accusation of you as a hypocrite to be true. So, come on - are you calling him a liar, or are you admitting you're a hypocrite?

I'd say he was trying to cover his own ass as much as possible after the whole thing went viral, for which he can hardly be blamed.

Ah, so you accuse me of calling her a liar, but the conference organizer was just "covering his ass" for saying the same thing? Do you have any idea how schizophrenic you sound?

I'm going with Violet's version of events, without a doubt.

Now then, at this point I have to wonder - why are you trying to drown out the facts?

There are three stories of an event, but you choose one that agrees with your prejudices and then say everyone else is "trying to drown out the facts". Got it - you're a paranoid schizophrenic, hence your obsession with Solanis. I'm glad I don't have a Factory for you to visit me at.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 223

...based on any hope they might have that people would take them seriously? I mean do you know what the SCUM Manifesto actually is? It makes Mein Kampf look like a rational and reasonable body of writing by comparison.

Next, you're going to be outraged about Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal, right? I mean, clearly, you don't understand satire.

The bare notion that it would be recommended reading for anyone but students of psychiatry boggles the mind,

Unless, of course, it's recommended for the same reason Swift's essay is.

and yet there's a comment, unchallenged, not so much as an eyebrow raised, recommending it right on the Ada website.

A comment left in a dead thread with no replies. Gawrsh! Again, I ask whether you've ever browsed Slashdot at -1?

It's all right there in black and white buddy, direct from Violet herself. Unless you're calling her a liar now.

The conference organizer apparently is, since he disagrees with her characterization of what happened. Unless you're calling him a liar now. And you must be, or else you've just proved my accusation of you as a hypocrite to be true. So, come on - are you calling him a liar, or are you admitting you're a hypocrite?

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 223

You think that a comment with no replies means that the organization isn't bothered by it? If you're not a hypocrite, go read Slashdot at -1, and make those same accusations about the crowd here.

Slashdot deliberately exercises very little editorial control, I would certainly expect a professional organisation to police the commentary on its website.

Based on what? Apparently, they aren't, but rather than facts get in the way of your rhetoric, you'll just go on your own expectations.

... who was going to give a talk about sex, rape, and the use of drugs to obviate consent, at a computer security conference. And it wasn't the Ada Initiative that "shut it down", but rather, the conference organizer decided to shut it down because 'the talk included "discussion of date rape drugs"'. In fact, contrary to your accusation, the Ada Initiative suggested ways that the speaker could still make the presentation, specifically doing a video of the talk or as an after-con talk. As the organizer states, "I have since reached out to Violet about recording her talk so we can put it up on our video site."

Trying to rewrite history doesn't work very well on the internet, you know.

You're right, it doesn't. I'm not sure why you think the conference organizer's statement is "rewriting history", though. Is it because, again, you would rather disregard facts when they disagree with your rhetoric?

Yeah your colours are showing

Yep. Anyone who disagrees with you or provides evidence that you're wrong must immediately be attacked as biased. As someone else noted, anyone who refers to themselves as the 'voice of truth' is indicating that they're nothing of the sort.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 223

The Ada Initiative is a hardcore feminist organisation whose conference guidelines were used to justify the expulsion and subsequent firings of two engineers in the donglegate debacle. Despite claiming to be non violent, apparently they aren't bothered by suggestions to hand out the S.C.U.M. Manifesto at conferences - that would be the Society For Cutting Up Men - whose deranged author had attempted to murder Andy Warhol.

You think that a comment with no replies means that the organization isn't bothered by it? If you're not a hypocrite, go read Slashdot at -1, and make those same accusations about the crowd here.

... who was going to give a talk about sex, rape, and the use of drugs to obviate consent, at a computer security conference. And it wasn't the Ada Initiative that "shut it down", but rather, the conference organizer decided to shut it down because 'the talk included "discussion of date rape drugs"'. In fact, contrary to your accusation, the Ada Initiative suggested ways that the speaker could still make the presentation, specifically doing a video of the talk or as an after-con talk. As the organizer states, "I have since reached out to Violet about recording her talk so we can put it up on our video site."

These sorts of parasitic strident supremacist organisations aren't helping women, they're actively trying to damage men, and the sooner they are revealed for what they are the better.

Along with hypocrites and those who misrepresent facts, yes.

Comment Directional arrows aren't as silly as you'd think (Score 1, Insightful) 391

These can not be very good cables because they lack the direction arrow that the Belden audiophile Ethernet cables have (had?). This was so you would know which way to plug them in. Packets flow from hub/switch to the device.

And if you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you. It is orange and you will make your money back in picture postcard royalties.

It's in the caption of the very first picture:

Audiophile-grade "Vodka" Ethernet cables, from AudioQuest. They even have directional indicators!

But, surprisingly for Ars, they missed the point of those directional indicators. The article on electrical testing hints at it:

Finally, the braided shield inside the cable drew some comments. "There is no continuity from the body of the one connector to the body of the other, indicating that the shield has not been terminated to one or both of the connector," noted Denke. "Our 6A uses an absorptive shield—that is, the cable is shielded but the shield is not terminated at either end. Alien crosstalk is the crosstalk which occurs between cables, as opposed to the internal crosstalk which occurs between the pairs in a cable. This may also be why there are unterminated shields on the Audioquest cable—I’m not really sure what the reason is there, though I had thought that the shields on Cat 7 were required to be tied to ground. It is also possible—I have no handy way to test—that they've tied the shield to one end only, though this would be highly nonstandard for network cabling." (emphasis added)

It's highly nonstandard for network cabling, but highly standard for audio cabling - it's called a telescoping shield and is used to prevent ground loops and audible (60 Hz) hum. Typically, you leave the shield connected at the low-impedance source, and disconnect it at the high-impedance load... as a result, the cable actually does have a directionality, but on the shield, rather than the signal lines. I can guarantee that's the intent with these cables and why they're marked with directional arrows, and it's pretty surprising that Ars and Denke missed it. Maybe they were stuck thinking "network" cable rather than "audio" cable.

That said, because these are network cables, that telescoping shield is irrelevant. You're not going to get ground hum into your amplifier from your network card, the way you would with a shield on an analog audio cable. They're simply not connected, and if they were, you'd have much bigger issues - like that hum causing all sorts of problems on your PCI bus. This is why network cable shields are typically connected at both ends: ground loops are irrelevant.

Comment Re:Right to Privacy in One's Backyard? (Score 1) 1197

You know, I generally don't agree with open carry ... most of the world cringes at that, and it's something Americans cherish.

But if your drone was hovering in my backyard looking at my teenage daughters for no good reason, and if I'd shot it down and you were about to come onto my property in a threatening manner without explanation, I can see the point.

Do you really need an explanation, considering you just shot down their drone?

"Just think, with VLSI we can have 100 ENIACS on a chip!" -- Alan Perlis

Working...