Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:It's a stupid test (Score 1) 641

by Translation Error (#48403697) Attached to: Sweden Considers Adding "Sexism" Ratings To Video Games
I think it's a pretty good test to use as a guideline, actually--when used appropriately, just like any other tool. First, it obviously can't be used with movies with a tiny cast or one that is constrained for important plot reasons. Is the movie about life inside a male prison or a true event where a plane with 10 men as passengers crashed? Then the test shouldn't be used. If there's very little dialog at all, the test probably doesn't fit either.

But what if the movie doesn't fall into any of those--if it's a movie with a large cast with lots of people talking? What if all the dialog is with men or about them, with no compelling plot reason for it? Does that send a message? Is that a message you want to subject yourself to?

That's up to you, of course. As is whether the movie in question fails the test but has a valid reason. Only an idiot would suggest that this test--which originally appeared as part of a conversation between two characters in a comic strip--should determine whether a movie can be released, though.

Comment: Value (Score 1) 698

by Translation Error (#48369113) Attached to: US School Installs 'Shooter Detection' System

In the live demonstration, the "gunman" entered the school armed with an assault rifle, opening fire with dummy rounds first in the school library then rampaging through hallways and classrooms. But he had only a few minutes to wreak havoc.

So, for the low cost of $20k-$100k multiplied by the number of schools this is installed in, we can limit a gunman with an assault rifle to only a few minutes of rampaging. While it's true that with many problems, mitigation can be very valuable even if a complete solution can't be found, I can't say that allowing someone minutes to mow down children with an assault rifle is all that much mitigation, especially for the cost to implement it.

Comment: Re:yea no (Score 1) 320

Even if they're not trying to get you to admit to other violations, if they knew who cheated, they wouldn't ask for people to come forward. Why would they? Because they want to be known for their kinder, gentler handling of cheaters? No, any time the responsible party is 'given the opportunity to come forward' it's because the people making the generous offer don't know who is responsible and figures it's worth a try.

Comment: Research (Score 1) 99

It follows research into the possible impact of 3D imaging on still-developing eyes. Few countries currently have guidelines about 3D usage.

And what research is this referring to? The article gives no information about the alleged research, though it does mention Nintendo's warning on the 3DS which just happens to say the 3D feature should only be used by children 7 years or older.

Comment: Technicalities (Score 4, Insightful) 198

by Translation Error (#48320163) Attached to: Ebola Nose Spray Vaccine Protects Monkeys

The vaccine uses a common cold virus genetically engineered to carry a tiny piece of Ebola DNA. Sprayed up the nose, it saved all nine monkeys tested for infection.

Saved? I can believe that none of the vaccinated monkeys caught Ebola, but I'd hardly call that 'saving' them. I'd also think calling a vaccine 100% effective is a bit premature with only nine test subjects.

Comment: Re:Nothing. (Score 5, Funny) 209

by Translation Error (#48317101) Attached to: What People Want From Smart Homes

What I really want a home to do though, is to clean itself. Self-clean the toilets, the sinks, the shower and bathtub, the tile, the carpet, the kitchen, and to be able to lift dust off of things and dispose of it.

But a really smart home will eventually realize the most efficient way to keep the house clean is to eliminate the people and pets in it...

"Out of register space (ugh)" -- vi

Working...