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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:What gender gap? (Score 1) 211

by crossmr (#48665703) Attached to: Tech's Gender Gap Started At Stanford

I certainly respect them for what they did, did I say anywhere that I didn't?
What I said was that a forced gender balance makes no sense. Some people are, to an extent, attracted to certain kinds of things. It isn't uniform, and there is no reason to expect it to be uniform across socio/economic/gender/nationality/etc across the world.

Comment: Re:What gender gap? (Score 4, Informative) 211

by crossmr (#48664949) Attached to: Tech's Gender Gap Started At Stanford

Right. If there's anything that's clear in the months after all this #GamerGate bullshit reached its apparent peak, it's that sexism and the bullying/harrassment of women is a fiction whipped up by angry feminists with a persecution complex.

I can't possibly imagine what would ever give anyone cause to think that...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanha...

Comment: What gender gap? (Score 4, Insightful) 211

by crossmr (#48664189) Attached to: Tech's Gender Gap Started At Stanford

News flash:
Not everything in this world is going to mimic the real demographics of the planet. If they idea is that we're all special snowflakes, we're sometimes going to find some people better suited to certain things than others. Unless there is evidence that the best person isn't being hired for the job, there is no gender gap. A gender gap is an artificial construct made by people who can't get past gender in the first place.

+ - Legal liability of "virus" reports on websites?

Submitted by crossmr
crossmr (957846) writes "I do some very part time web design for a couple places. One of the sites I built 3 years ago was part of a business that was recently sold, the new owner reported that some people couldn't access the site claiming it had a virus. I couldn't replicate the problem and began digging around. I finally ran one of those website virus scans and was surprised to see 3 out of 61 sites had reported the site had a virus. Some aggressive security settings on Chrome browsers were apparently preventing people from evening visiting the site.

2 of the 3 sites simply said that the website in question contained a "trojan" with a scary name seemingly made to frighten people away from the site. Googling the name provided basically zero details as to what the problem was. Through googling I found my way to Sucuri who do a free website scan. They then claimed the site was infested with "SEO SPAM". I did more googling and found out that a while back there was a scandal involving some module creators and SEO spam. They had been inserting invisible links into pages containing their modules to increase their SEO. This was the "trojan".

There was no real virus. There was no danger to users computers or even the webhost, or anything except google's ranking. For that reason these scanning sites recommended and were used in such a way that people were prevented or strongly encouraged not to visit the site. All because of a hidden back link.

Legally this seems pretty shaky. They use vague names to label the problem, and never explain to the end user the issue that is on the site. Most people see "trojan" and say "I want no part of this!" Immediately after removing the javascript code that hid the links (and the links itself) two of the three scanners report the site clean and we're waiting on a rescan request from the last (scumware). It's clear there was never a real trojan or virus anywhere on the site. Anyone ever experienced this before? Have any of these scanning sites ever been sued because of the labelling they've done? Any lawyers want to way in on that? If people say they didn't visit the site because of this label, it seems like it'd be pretty obvious to prove there was damage from what they did."

Comment: Re:eSports aren't like regular Sports (Score 1) 146

by crossmr (#47635509) Attached to: The ESports Athletes Who Tried To Switch Games

No, they really aren't. The media liked to make it out like they were, and they were certainly bigger here than anywhere else, but they're not remotely as big as traditional sports.

They still have a video game channel, but it broadcasts all kinds of things, it's also in the nosebleeds and nowhere near comparable to regular TV channels. In the same area they also have a channel for Baduk (Go), and Janggi (Korean chess) and other cerebral activities, one of which was called "BrainTV". Interestingly the media never bothered to mention that in context when they pointed out how crazy it is that Korea had a channel or two for video games. There are also a host of other channels around that area airing things like poorly dubbed retro chinese dramas, and other low interest subjects.

if ESPN can cover the snooze-fest that is professional poker, there is no reason they shouldn't have a channel for gaming.

Comment: Re:But is it false? (Score 1) 268

by crossmr (#47313831) Attached to: Wikipedia Editors Hit With $10 Million Defamation Suit

That's not what it means by public interest.

It means that it's something that is crucial for people to know.

The fact that some random guy had an affair isn't really in the public's interest. It really doesn't make any difference to anyone except him and his wife if he's had an affair. However, if the guy was doing something bad that affected many people like say touching little kids or selling tainted food, that would be in the public's interest to know. Essentially the person would need to give cause as to why people would need to know the information that was said or written in order to defend against the charge.

Comment: Re:But is it false? (Score 1) 268

by crossmr (#47313731) Attached to: Wikipedia Editors Hit With $10 Million Defamation Suit

For the most part that wouldn't involve Korea or Koreans on the vast majority of topics. Other than the Japanese/Korean editors who constantly war on there.
Sure they can be all different countries, but we know that the hosting/registration/etc doesn't have anything to do with Korea.

It would really only end up in the courts here if the subject and editor were both in Korea. Koreans don't seem to do a lot of suing of foreign nationals who aren't here to defend themselves in the courts, at least nothing that really makes the news.

Comment: Re:But is it false? (Score 4, Interesting) 268

by crossmr (#47313301) Attached to: Wikipedia Editors Hit With $10 Million Defamation Suit

They should be glad they aren't in South Korea.
After moving here and giving the laws a good read, it's quite interesting.

Truth isn't a defense here. Simply saying something negative about someone is sufficient for defamation, and the only defense is "public interest". If you can prove it was in the public's best interest to know that information you're okay.

Further defamation is part of criminal law here. 2 years for defaming someone with a true statement, 5 years for a false statement. There is a separate law for defaming the dead with a false statement.

Korea also has public insult laws on the books. So if you insult someone publicly so that others can hear it, that's also a criminal offence.

To a certain extent, the laws are somewhat interesting. they have a "keep your nose in your own business" kind of quality about them. I'm not sure what would happen to a thing like wikipedia if it was hosted here.

Take an astronaut to launch.

Working...