Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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: We have already answered the question. (Score 2) 162

by cheetah_spottycat (#49128353) Attached to: Should a Service Robot Bring an Alcoholic a Drink?
Apparently it's perfectly fine to send killer robots to murder random unwanted people around the globe at the command of a single person with no parliamental control, no charges, no sentence, no judges, no jury, no defense and against all governing international laws. But serving alcohol to its owner is a problem because, oh my god, it might not be healthy? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

Comment: Re:Who are you? I'm bat- er, ANON! (Score 5, Interesting) 413

No, it's not. The slippery slope is where the legal definition got extended so much beyond the clinical definition that it no longer makes any sense by any rational criteria in an alarming number of cases it is applied to. Before we go out on the street and call for a witch hunt, the common definition of "pedophilia" needs to be reformed, so that it again means actual child abuse, and neither "12 year old boys discover their sexuality like everyone else did during puperty" nor "17 year old girlfriend sends naughty pictures to 18 year old boyfriend" or any completely normal, consensual and non-threatening behaviour in between. Free those resources to fight actual child abuse, and we don't need self-appointed trigger happy internet superheroes with torches and pitchforks who think who need to take the law into their own hands.

Comment: Re:Why is this so difficult? (Score 5, Insightful) 1198

There are many known painless and very effective ways of killing a human being. For example, suffocation with Nitrogen gas. It will cause a state of euphoria, then unconsciousness, then death. No pain, dead simple (pun not intended), and 100% success rate. It's a no-brainer. Or a simple, massive overdose of pretty much any anesthetic will do. It does not take complicated mixtures. But it would mean, your convict would die "happy". And that thought would be too much to bear for the victims. The death penalty is not about justice. It is about revenge. It is designed to be gruesome, the suffering is intentional. The deliquent is no longer considered a human being, and the pig deserves to suffer. It seems to be consensus even here on slashdot.

Comment: Re:Time to move into the Century of the fruit bat. (Score 1) 1198

Why does the US still even have the Death penalty?

It's all about revenge. The american people are thirsty for blood. It's a dark truth that watching people die can be very satisfying, once you've been relieved from the burden of conscience.

Comment: Torture may have been Intentional. (Score 1) 1198

Let's take a brief look into the mind of the supporters of the death penality. A BBC reporter investigated a few scientifically proven humane ways to kill a human being, and offered them to Robert Blecker, Professor criminal law and constitutional law at the New York Law School: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... So, with people like these on the spearhead of the pro-death-penalty movement ... can we expect a humane death penalty?

Comment: Re:Hmmm (Score 1) 115

by cheetah_spottycat (#46831285) Attached to: <em>The Witcher 3</em> and Projekt Red's DRM-Free Stand
You do realize you're talking about CD Project RED ... who run the biggest distribution system for DRM-Free games on the planet? So, yeah, obviously the original Witcher was a learning experience for them. That was fucking 7 years ago. Get over it. These people are the good guys that brought us gog.com and are just about to release a Triple-A-Title without DRM or copy protection. I mean, what the fuck are you complaining about? That they're not a charity, but an actual company of people who want to earn a living with this?

Comment: Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 427

by cheetah_spottycat (#46355539) Attached to: YouTube Ordered To Remove "Illegal" Copyright Blocking Notices

That is only partly correct. GEMA indeed owns music written by their members. If you beome a member, you basially sign away all rights of all music you have written in the past and will ever write in the future to them. You literally no longer own your own compositions.

As a return, you get paid according to a convoluted fixed tariff system that heavily favours top-40 producers, deducts up to 80% of fees, gets paid out with up to two years of delay - and the exclusivity of the deal leads to absurd situation like artists having to pay for your own concerts.

In addition to that, GEMA also acts as a collection agency for foreign copyright organisations who have granted GEMA collection rights through IFPI.

It is masked but always present. I don't know who built to it. It came before the first kernel.