Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:What are they going to do? (Score 5, Informative) 227

by Translation Error (#48629227) Attached to: "Team America" Gets Post-Hack Yanking At Alamo Drafthouse, Too

They're computer crackers. What are they going to do? Why all the fear?

There's always been fear about the 'evil hackers' and the terrible, magical things they can do. From Wikipedia:

Mitnick served five years in prison--four and a half years pre-trial and eight months in solitary confinement--because, according to Mitnick, law enforcement officials convinced a judge that he had the ability to "start a nuclear war by whistling into a pay phone", meaning that law enforcement told the judge that he could somehow dial into the NORAD modem via a payphone from prison and communicate with the modem by whistling to launch nuclear missiles.

Comment: Poll purpose (Score 3, Interesting) 160

by Translation Error (#48626151) Attached to: At 40, a person is ...
At first I was going to complain about the need to further label, categorize, and qualify people. Then I thought, ok, it's a poll and they want to find out what our opinion is, which is fair enough, but why ask something about something like that? It's not very interesting, it has no real relevance to tech or nerds...

And then I realized there is a way our answers could be interesting to the people running the site--demographics and marketing. Should the ads and tone of this site be aimed toward a younger crowd who thinks 40 is over the hill? Should they cater to an older, more established audience? Maybe they should market to people who expect to live fast and die young.

Am I being overly cynical and just imagining things? Is the question of what people on this site think about the age 40 actually interesting and relevant in some way that I'm missing? Or do other people think this is a play to get some free demographics data?

Comment: Re:I would love... (Score 3) 571

by Translation Error (#48625723) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

To hear Sony explain to its shareholders how spending tens of millions of dollars to produce and millions more to promote a movie that they now have no plans to release is a good thing.

"It's win-win. We avoid the risk of bad publicity from someone blowing up a theatre showing the movie, and with all the attention from the threat combined with the fact that it can't be seen in theatres, home media sales will be through the roof! People will be lining up to buy the movie that was 'too dangerous to be shown in theatres' while thumbing their noses at the terrorists who don't want them to see it."

Comment: Re:It's a stupid test (Score 1) 642

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.

"Ignorance is the soil in which belief in miracles grows." -- Robert G. Ingersoll