Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:The reason is more simple (Score 1) 40 40

That's one of two major factors, and yeah, even if one is solved, the other has to be to.

My next vehicle would be an electric except:

1. Price, as you mention. New - yeah, I guess the lowest end electrics compare to mid-priced vehicles, when subsidized, but it's still a price difference measured in many, many, thousands. But used? Forget it. And I'll be honest, I'm a used car buyer. I can't afford tens of thousands of dollars for a new vehicle.

2. There's a good chance the vehicle that'll need replacing will be the minivan. There are no electric minivans.

We need both a wide range of useful vehicles, and prices to be reasonable. It's hard to believe that it's not practical to build an electric vehicle with a 100 mile range for a price comparable to a gasoline powered vehicle of similar specification.

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 1) 326 326

(FFS: An obvious troll is modded +5 Insightful, and virtually everyone calling them on it is modded down through the floor. That's moderation abuse. See you in metamod...)

This little loaded troll is +5 Insightful? The one that calls a harassment campaign that's trying to silence women (and other minorities) in tech and their supporters through threats of violence "free minded geeks", and those who oppose them "authoritarian" and "apologists for censorship"? Because constant threats of violence is somehow pro-free speech, and encouraging people to evaluate games, highlighting problematic aspects, and encouraging developers to produce more interesting work is pro-censorship?

There are countries out there that welcome the "MRA/Republican/Stormfront/Racist/Misogyno-nerds" (a fairly decent description of a campaign of relentless online terror against women, blacks, and left wingers) and others that make up your little cesspool - the countries that support the kind of terror you inflict on those who refuse to kowtow to your demands. An Iranian actor just had to apologize for tweeting support for the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling. Russia continues to push the bar as far as imprisoning gay people for being gay in public. Saudi Arabia punishes women for invading your traditional male space by, you know, driving and stuff.

Those are countries you guys would love. Why don't you fuck off there, and let the rest of us enjoy a diverse community in which people don't get rape and death threats for criticizing the Hitman video game?

Comment: Re:I hate bloatware as much as the next person... (Score 1) 74 74

Why not? Suing them seems totally appropriate unless they are making adequate pre-purchase disclosure, and ensuring that the prospective purchaser is aware of the characteristics of the thing they are purchasing.

Disagree? Re-read Adam Smith.

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 0) 326 326

Christ, try being original with your trolling

?

It's been repeatedly proven that the "harassment" has been the professional victims using alternate accounts to send themselves messages - and it's also why none of these supposed "threats" have ever been reported to the police.

That's a complete lie. But it is what Gamergaters tell newcomers so they can feel good about supporting a campaign of harassment.

Do you feel good about not merely ignoring the high profile threats and harassment prominent women in tech are experiencing, but also smearing the victims as liars, and spreading false stories to try to get people to disbelieve them?

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 2) 326 326

Yes, but remember, in those days "Cookie Monster" was a typical virus. And internet communities were relatively homogenous.

There are, there must be, limits to free speech. Shouting down someone else doesn't count as free speech. At most it's a reasonable reaction to their stifling of your own speech.

In this case it appears (as an outside observer) that this is the silencing of an honest, truthful, and respected voice. If she is an employee of Rededit, then I suppose that is their right, but the proper response is to refuse to deal with or support Rededit in any way. Which is what this protest appears to be doing.

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 2) 326 326

What you say is clearly reasonable, but I've got to believe that you are mischaracterizing this event. Censorship is always questionable, even when done for the highest of motives. So are you asserting that the folk on Rededit were inciting to violence? Taken literally it appears that this is what you are saying. I'm sufficiently unfamiliar with the events that this could even be a true and accurate characterization. But I think I'd need to have seen some proof before I believed it.

Given the way that people often behave, I have to admit that defending incitements to violence isn't something I have a hard time believing. What I have a hard time believing is a massive outcry in support of defending incitements to violence (without considerable prior propaganda).

Comment: Re:Harrassment and frivolity (Score 1) 85 85

OK, but the settlement is unlikely to be for more than pennies (we're talking Youtube royalties here), so what lawyer is likely to take on the case?

Despite the view of many that the legal system is some kind of lottery where you can win arbitrary amounts of cash, the reality is that the civil system generally works on the basis of damages with any punitive element being small or non-existent. Most of the time the high awards you hear about for some injury or another are a product of high medical bills being involved, not because a judge wanted to make Macy's pay for having slippery floors (or whatever.)

Comment: Re:It's that time... (Score 1) 313 313

It's important. The times that it's critical are rare. So... add if's it's in the middle of the road you prefer to stop rather than run over it. If it's up-right it's proper to dodge dangerously rather than to hit it. The number of crawling kids in the middle of the road is quite small, but it's larger than the number of infants, so add in something that smoothly increases the probability of human as it's (estimated) weight approaches 90 pounds and decreases it as it exceeds 300 pounds. Or 400. So you have a flattened bell curve with a smooth top.

But really, all this fiddling is just to handle corner cases. Usually you just stop or avoid the thing on the road without wondering much what it is. Only if you can't do either of those do you need the fancy figuring, which is a pain, because that's when you need the fast decision, so you "corner case handler" need to be something simple.
Rule 1: If it's standing up, it's a human. Don't hit, even if you must take damage. (This yields several false positives, but too bad. We need a quick decision.)
Rule 2: Estimate it's weight. (Ouch! That looks like a slow process...so while you're doing it, slow and start dodging.) If it's above 25 pounds, avoid even if you must take damage. (Note that hitting something heavy at a fast speed will damage you no matter what.) Continue slowing and preparing to dodge. If it's following a ball, dodge even if you must take damage.

Sorry, time's up.

This isn't a perfect approach, but it's simple, and doable. The hard step is estimating weight. There is a problem with false positives. A paper mache statue would count as human. But it should handle all common cases. And there should also be a distinction between streets where the traffic is slow and rare and streets where the traffic is fast and common. Freeways are much less likely to have humans walking in the road.

Additionally, there should be a rule about not overdriving your reaction time, especially on slow streets, but nothing can stop a kid from running out right in front of you from between two parked cars. And nobody, neither automaton nor human, can reliably deal with that. Which is why that first rule about "upright" is made to yield a lot of false positives. If you have time, then you can refigure things and perhaps decide that "that's a paper mache statute", so you may start to dodge in a way that will damage yourself, and then refigure to avoid damaging yourself when you, more slowly, decide that such action isn't needed.

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 4, Insightful) 326 326

Got any evidence ?

Plenty. You can start here.

Nobody's trying to "smear" GamerGate, we read what you write in your own words on 8chan, /r/KIA, and under the #gamergate hashtag.

Your entire movement started when Adam Baldwin tweeted links to YouTube videos smearing a female game dev's sex life because her ex-boyfriend wanted to run a hate campaign against her. That information is public domain. It's not something I just made up. It's the ORIGINS OF GAMERGATE. It's where the hashtag came from.

Forget the links I point to you above, take a look at the last few articles on Slashdot concerning gender - concerning subjects as minor and unthreatening as whether marketing a chemistry set specifically at girls might have the opposite affect to that intended (ie doing so might decrease interest by girls.) Something many of us would like to discuss, but can't, because you fuckers SHITPOST over EVERY. SINGLE. DISCUSSION, doing your absolute best to discourage anyone from even discussing the subject by flooding the comments section with misogynist trolls and off topic bullshit.

If you really are so stupid as to think that GamerGate is something to do with Ethics in Gaming Journalism, you might want to actually look into the movement. You might even want to look at the "journalists" it allies itself with.

Because if it did, it wouldn't:

- Do everything possible to prevent discussions of women in tech. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

- Harass female game devs constantly, because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

- Talk non stop about so-called "SJWs" and never mention journalists. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

- Demand Slashdot ban discussions related to diversity in tech. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

- Call JACK THOMPSON "BASED DAD", a lawyer who has actually tried to ban games, while calling Anita Sarkeesian a "censor" or "authoritarian", because she produced a video identifying tropes she feels are sexist in various video games. Because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

- Support the "journalism" of Milo Yiannopoulos, because he certainly has NOTHING to do with "ethics in (ANY) journalism" FFS.

- Pretend a mass harassment campaign against prominent women in journalism is not going on, pretending instead it's some kind of fund raising stunt (even though it doesn't apparently help any of the targets that it's going on), because that has nothing to do with "ethics in gaming journalism".

Do you get the picture?

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score -1, Flamebait) 326 326

(Third attempt: reposted due to abusive moderation. Interesting how the moderation on virtually everything I post that's anti-harassment these days proves my point. What has happened to tech? What has happened to Slashdot? If I'd posted a year ago that a bunch of female devs would be suffering harassment up to and including rape threats and worse in an attempt to prevent them from speaking about problems they encounter, I'd have been laughed out of town. Now it's happening a significant number of people on Slashdot actively support that hatred campaign and are doing everything they can to silence anyone who opposes it.)

This little loaded troll is +5 Insightful? The one that calls a harassment campaign that's trying to silence women (and other minorities) in tech and their supporters through threats of violence "free minded geeks", and those who oppose them "authoritarian" and "apologists for censorship"? Because constant threats of violence is somehow pro-free speech, and encouraging people to evaluate games, highlighting problematic aspects, and encouraging developers to produce more interesting work is pro-censorship?

There are countries out there that welcome the "MRA/Republican/Stormfront/Racist/Misogyno-nerds" (a fairly decent description of a campaign of relentless online terror against women, blacks, and left wingers) and others that make up your little cesspool - the countries that support the kind of terror you inflict on those who refuse to kowtow to your demands. An Iranian actor just had to apologize for tweeting support for the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling. Russia continues to push the bar as far as imprisoning gay people for being gay in public. Saudi Arabia punishes women for invading your traditional male space by, you know, driving and stuff.

Those are countries you guys would love. Why don't you fuck off there, and let the rest of us enjoy a diverse community in which people don't get rape and death threats for criticizing the Hitman video game?

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...