Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Not unthinkable (Score 1) 928

Of course SW's reaction shouldn't have been what it was (full-out spiteful), but the thought of calling someone out by name on the internet makes me cringe. To me--though I concede I might have spent too much time on a certain imageboard--you should only post somebody's full name or any other personal information if you're prepared to see that person burn in digital fire. We shouldn't underestimate how harmful it can be to have something critical said about someone on the internet. While Mr. Duff's complaint was valid and the reaction by the airline was wrong, I don't think he went through the proper channels to file a personal grievance. Employees have supervisors and managers for just this reason. I'm fine with complaining about whole companies online, or but sniping individuals can be incredibly injurious to their careers and lives. It's just not something I'd do, maybe I'm in the wrong.

Comment: What does it mean to us? (Score 2) 347

by Tifer (#46335357) Attached to: NSA and GHCQ Employing Shills To Poison Web Forum Discourse
It means we can't trust people on the internet. This should come as no surprise. Experienced internet users already know not to take things at face value, not to feed trolls, and not to take anyone's "word for it". In civil, learned communities (like Slashdot, for example) a "shill" is fighting an uphill battle when trying to spread disinformation--anything that's posted here will be carefully examined. Even in volatile, less-learned sites (4chan's /b/, for example), they'll still have to trudge through a hundred miles of skepticism and snark to convince any sizable demographic of any one thing. I'm not saying "shills" can't be effective on the internet. I'm just saying I'm glad I don't have their job.

Comment: Merriam-Webster (Score 1) 488

by Tifer (#45203679) Attached to: Call Yourself a Hacker, Lose Your 4th Amendment Rights
The problem is that the court uses the dictionary definition of hacker: "computers : a person who secretly gets access to a computer system in order to get information, cause damage, etc. : a person who hacks into a computer system". Online (or at least in sites like Slashdot) we use the informal definition; "Someone who is good at programming." Apparently, this second definition does not appear in a Merriam-Webster dictionary. Dictionaries do, however, offer a secondary definition of the word: ": a person who plays a sport badly" To escape legal persecution, everyone on Slashdot should be prepared to testify that they're really bad at baseball.

Comment: Re:highest point of the series (Score 1) 77

by Tifer (#45145889) Attached to: Under the Hood With <em>Battlefield 4</em>
True, most players usually don't get the very best guns. It can be frustrating trying to unlock anything when you're at a disadvantage to begin with, but (though this doesn't validate the system completely) there's a certain charm to holding your own against superior firepower, and if you stick around long enough, you'll see that there's charm in HAVING superior firepower, too. Sorta like a yin yang, but with tea-bagging.

Comment: Re:As a student in Guilford County.. (Score 1) 177

I agree wholeheartedly with your take on the internet as a source of information. I wouldn't be the man I am today if I didn't occasionally get lost in a string of delirious wikipedia browsing sessions. Frankly, teaching people how to use the internet is very important in our society. But there's a giant, pulsating asterisk attached to this issue. The internet is also a source of unparalleled distraction in a classroom setting. Lots of people don't use (or even THINK about using) the internet as a family encyclopedia. In middle school with personal computers, for every one student who benefited from having his or her own screen with which to follow along with the teacher's lesson, there were two or three students who missed days worth of material because they were dicking around online. Even in high school, teachers fight an uphill battle in prying students away from their keyboards during boring subjects or lectures. I have dysgraphia, so any work I produce on my laptop will be finished twice as thoroughly and three times faster than anything I hand write, so I couldn't tell you if laptops definitively improve students' education--I wouldn't know. I benefit in a different way than other students.

Comment: Re:As a student in Guilford County.. (Score 1) 177

I never tried to apply anything to all members of a "class" I have never seen a student at my school deliberately mistreat one of their laptops. They all have to be the same make and model anyway, so even if some sociopath wanted a better laptop, they're not going to get it from breaking their poor old computer. The point I was trying to make is that my peers, despite relying so heavily on their computers and supposedly being educated on their proper use and maintenance, are still often unable to avoid dropping, spilling on, or otherwise mauling them. These damages are frequent and costly. Assuming these tablets are as or more fragile than one of our laptops, I cannot believe that any other group of students would fare much better than we do in handling them. And in a private school it's fine. Say what you want about snobbery but in general students can afford to get their computers fixed. It is expected that you can afford that. We can't extend such expectations to a public school setting--those damages are paid for by the school, which is funded with tax dollars.

When a Banker jumps out of a window, jump after him--that's where the money is. -- Robespierre

Working...