Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:You don't say... (Score 2) 606

by Zelucifer (#49219039) Attached to: YouTube Video of Racist Chant Results In Fraternity Closure

That's not at all hate speech. Hate speech requires there to be a specific target. As well, I don't agree with your statement that no-one who says that believes it. The individuals who do believe that the Holocaust was a hoax may be disturbed, but they definitely do exist. True radicalism (as Neo-Nazi's and other Holocaust deniers tend to be), necessitates ardent belief. In the case of Antisemitism many feel such hatred and fear that they can convince themselves of beliefs or ideas that a normal person would consider completely irrational.

Comment: Is this Clickbait? (Score 1) 255

by Zelucifer (#49174637) Attached to: Gritty 'Power Rangers' Short Is Not Fair Use

Far too often I've been seeing asinine articles written about arbitrary asides and I've come to the conclusion that editors only post these meaningless, incomprehensible, rants because of the amount of discussion (in this case, complaints) they generate.

No one with half a brain would think these ideas are sound. In fact, they read like a Buzzfeed article. 5 insane tricks to troll SlashDot! 1 way to make your audience hate you (and comment more!).

Can anyone think of a reason why these tirades get posted, other than to generate false outrage?

Comment: Re:Ramifications (Score 2) 334

She gave him consent to take them. Her consent is only needed for that single instance, as once those photos are taken, he owns them. She's essentially claiming property rights on something he owns (in this case, intellectual property). Just because it involves her being naked, does not change that fact. As long as the photos stay private, they should be his to do with as he pleases.

Comment: Re:Google glasses (Score 1) 473

That's actually incorrect. On public property, in the USA, people have an unabated right to record, regardless of permission. Obviously there are exceptions, such as shoving a camera in your face, stalking, etc, however I can record you in public as much as I like within reasonable limits, even with your expressed desire that I stop. What I can do with that footage is however, more limited.

Real Users find the one combination of bizarre input values that shuts down the system for days.