Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Going out of business ... (Score 1) 179

I envision this as a response to Maxim or FHM. People still buy those, even though there's no nudity. Playboy was always able to find some level of legitimacy through their articles and I assume they will still attempt the same level of content even by removing the nudity.

Honestly, I don't see the point in this and they should just retire the magazine and create a new one w/o nudity to compete with the others in that genre; however, they clearly feel they will be able to capitalize successfully on their established fan base and grow it into the future using this new format.

Best of luck to them.

Comment Re:"At that price it's almost a burner" (Score 1) 154

I paid 80 bucks new from Amazon for this now discontinued phone.

Quite respectable, and a few months ago, was my best pick under 100 bucks. My girlfriend uses it, and she didn't want anything expensive, just basic Android apps, internet, etc. By anyone's standard, this is a smart phone.

Comment Re:same as guns (Score 1) 176

No I think mostly only the police should be allowed to own guns. Security people should not, if they need guns for something they should call the police.

LOL. Okay, dude. You're naive, at best. You trust the police? Apparently you haven't been paying attention lately. The police, who are now using military surplus on people in the streets, that are never held accountable for excessive use of force? The police, which the courts have already established have NO obligation to protect anyone?

Here's a clue for you: this will never happen. Banning guns starts with the debate on who will actually have a monopoly on having guns. It will NOT be "just the police". There are many armed bureaucracies that will NOT give up their guns. The FBI and everyone under Homeland Security, sure. But also the Department of Education (did you know they have their own SWAT squads?), HUD, Health and Human Services, the Department of Agriculture (which also has their own SWAT teams, they use them for raiding illegal raw milk producing farmers, among other things), the State Department (of course), and Commerce (yep, armed). There are numerous state bureaucracies that also have armed teams, including Alcohol bureaus and DMVs. All these folks will NOT be willing to give up guns.

Most private security companies are run and often staffed by military veterans and retired police, and none of them are going to give up their guns. And the wealthy and the elites that hire them will make sure they never have to. Because, yes, your rulers do not want you to have guns, and that's the rulers in government and the rulers not in government. Do you think the banks are going to go along with having their money and assets transported around by unarmed guards? Your government cannot function without the banks, there is no way they will disarm the banks and their security folks. You're going to tell them "Well just call the cops." Good luck.

Of course, we're just getting started. There will be MANY groups clamoring to be part of the monopoly-allowed-to-have-guns, many of them with money and influence, not to mention the weapons manufacturers themselves. One of the few productive exports the US has left is weapons - you think they will give that up? Oh, then you get to try to figure out HOW those powerless, not wealthy, and non influential people will be disarmed, and WHO is going to disarm them. Break out the popcorn - it's going to be fun.

Comment Re:same as guns (Score 1) 176

Drugs are not the same as guns. You don't get physically addicted to guns. You are comparing apples and oranges.

You said banning guns would be easier than encryption because guns are physical objects. When I pointed out drugs are physical objects, too, and bans fail, you move the goal post. So... you think the only people using illegal drugs are physically addicted?

I assume you, like most people, don't really want to ban guns, but just provide certain people with a monopoly on using them. More people have been killed by their own government than by any other cause.

Comment Re:Issue is more complicated (Score 1) 927

I just RTFA. I saw nothing about violence. I saw nothing about moderating technical criticism. Would you care to point out where Ms. Sharp said anything like that?

It's in the last link of the summary, when she tried to change the LKML to be more to her liking:

Quoting her first message: 'Seriously, guys? Is this what we need in order to get improve -stable? Linus Torvalds is advocating for physical intimidation and violence. Ingo Molnar and Linus are advocating for verbal abuse. ... Violence, whether it be physical intimidation, verbal threats or verbal abuse is not acceptable. Keep it professional on the mailing lists.'"

Verbal abuse != violence. Physical intimidation might be, and a credible threat of violence can be assault - but I don't think Linus has ever actually done that.

Comment Re:Issue is more complicated (Score 1) 927

That's usually said to children who have been hurt by words, and it's nonsense. It's telling them to suppress their emotional response entirely, which isn't healthy.

It's said to children to teach them not to suppress their emotional response entirely, but to help them learn restraint, and the difference between verbal sparring and physical assault. It's the basis of civilized society. People are allowed to have disagreements, arguments, and even yell at each other, but it is NOT okay to escalate those disagreements into physical altercation. That's why we prosecute people for assault when they "throw the first punch" - they have initiated violence. We teach our children these concepts early.

The reason that things like solitary confinement or threatening violence work and are considered torture is because even if there is no physical harm there is still very real harm being done.

Those are also physical assault, and actual violence. Threatening violence is assault, and can be criminally prosecuted. Ditto for kidnapping / false imprisonment.

Comment Re:You most certainly can be verbally abused (Score 1) 927

Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can do more permanent damage. Stockholm syndrome, being groomed, being broken down and molded, these are all this that can be achieved by words alone. Maybe Sarah took these things to heart and was incompatible with that environment, and it's healthy for her to express that. Nobody is expecting everything to change over one individual but she is not out of line in speaking her mind.

"Stockholm syndrome", "being groomed", "broken down and molded" - not just words. ALL of your examples involve more than just words - they are using words as part of a system of violence characterized by some form of imprisonment or threat of violence (assault). They don't work on people that can just walk away, or have access to other, neutral actors or supportive people. That is, they work only for people FORCEFULLY isolated or kept under constant surveillance.

So, you've just given us examples of actual, physical force and/or violence, where words are also used to emotionally and psychologically harm the victim. That's not what we're talking about, here.

Comment Re:Issue is more complicated (Score 4, Insightful) 927

You're making crude generalizations on the basis of gender. I dare say that borderline bullying isn't a healthy environment for a lot of men or women; it's immature and unprofessional and, as Sarah Sharp eloquently points out in her post, by tolerating such a culture the leaders of the community in question are prioritising the "need" for people to express themselves aggressively over other people's potential need for respectful and sensitive communication. It's all very well to say that people need to learn not to take things personally, but the fact is that you can't possibly know - especially not over a mailing list - just what emotional or personal issues a person might be going through. Do you really a want a situation where curious and potentially talented developers are put off contributing to an important project because of a toxic culture?

What struck me about what she was trying to do, and I've seen others try to do the same thing, is to equate some comment or comments on a mailing list, or other post, as "violence". When I grew up we learned that "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me." That is, they're just words, they are not fists or knives or guns. It's not "violence" to berate someone or use colorful language or anything else. It may "offend" you, but taking offense at something someone says is entirely subjective, and impossible to enforce, because you end up with "speech codes", banning words, and other asinine restrictions until everything is a euphemism or metaphor until no one knows what anyone is talking about any more.

Bullying used to mean you're getting physically intimidated, punched, kicked, assaulted or robbed regularly. Now it seems it's enough that someone said something that hurt your feelings. And people can get their feelings hurt by things that are totally NOT intended that way by the speaker, just because of the listener's history or viewpoint.

Equating speech to physical violence is a very dangerous trend that will not end well.

Comment Re:Who actually wants this? (Score 1) 66

Well if it means we're going from small devices with small apps and small amounts of resources to suddenly making them full on desktop machines, I just don't see the point.

And that's totally fine. The point isn't what YOU want, it's what some private company wants to do and these actions will in no way, shape, or form negatively impact your life and thus getting all up in a huff about it is a little over the top.

All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.