Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Ethics? (Score 1) 552

by Theaetetus (#48634015) Attached to: FBI Confirms Open Investigation Into Gamergate

I notice that all your links are to poorly made YouTube videos. Taking the first one, the links you claim back you up are actually just links to more YouTube videos, a document on Google Docs that is unverifiable, a seemingly unrelated WaPo editorial about a spat between journalists and bloggers, and a Gamasutra article that they clearly state was written by community member and not their own staff and which seems to be mostly irrelevant.

Aside: what the hell is up with that? Linking to a 15 minute YouTube video that, by definition, takes 15 minutes to sit through, rather than a five page article that can be skimmed in two? And the videos don't even use the medium to show graphics or charts - they're generally just some talking head in front of their computer's webcam. Are the pundits of this new generation illiterate, and can't simply write down what they want to say? Or are they assuming that their audience is illiterate?

Comment: Re:Ethics? (Score 1) 552

by Theaetetus (#48633983) Attached to: FBI Confirms Open Investigation Into Gamergate

When the news came out? THIRTEEN gaming sites issued THE EXACT SAME STORY about how they didn't need gamers and that gamers were "dead".

Actually, one issued the story and then others responded to it, many of them jumping on the same bandwagon. It's like seeing something in the NYTimes, then subsequently the WaPo saying, "The NYTimes reported X. We believe X'."
I mean, hell, if you're going to call that a conspiracy, then you just issued a similar story, so mark it up to 14.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 4, Insightful) 678

by rnws (#48633597) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'
Therein lies a big part of the problem, why should their be a "side". Science is about the finding of fact and facts don't care what side you're on. You might want to deny that a certain type of virus won't affect you because of your religious belief for example. Problem is, the virus doesn't care, don't have a "side" and will kill you just as well as everyone on the other "side". People can deny all kinds of things as much as they like, but in the final measure, it doesn't matter squat, the climate will change, you will get lung cancer, HPV will infect you, whatever...

Comment: Re:Sounds good. (Score 1) 552

by Theaetetus (#48633513) Attached to: FBI Confirms Open Investigation Into Gamergate

According to Wikipedia*, #notyourshield was largely a sockpuppet sham.

Being personally acquainted with at least one of the #NotYourShield folks, they definitely aren't all sockpuppets.

Those are not inconsistent statements. You believe that the number of sockpuppets was less than 100%. GP says that according to wiki, it's greater than 50%. If it turns out anywhere within that range, it's still bad.

Comment: Re:cowardice (Score 1) 552

by Theaetetus (#48633453) Attached to: FBI Confirms Open Investigation Into Gamergate

Brianna Wu was caught subsequently did admit to using at least one sockpuppet (twitter handle was BROLOLZ). Other ones, the evidence doesn't definitively prove anything, but are highly suspicious. Hopefully the FBI is taking it seriously.

Gosh, you're right, these sure are harassing tweets:

Drake Harper @BROLOLZ Oct 20
Deeply concerned about how Dragon's Crown perpetuates rape culture, bro.

Drake Harper @BROLOLZ Oct 20
Contemplating my white male privilege while playing Tekken Tag Tournament 2.

I'm sure the FBI will be cracking down on Wu any day now.

Comment: Re:Someone doesn't understand basic relativity (Score 1) 81

The balancing act is almost exactly the same at the last moment of forward flight as it is at the first moment of retro burn, just in a different direction.

Aerodynamics matter very little at high altitude. They matter some at lower altitude, but I doubt they make much difference when the engine is burning.

Comment: Re:Someone doesn't understand basic relativity (Score 1) 81

The mass is less, and presumably easier to control, but yes, that is a difference.

The relative speeds are the same. Launch starts at 0 and increases to 1300. Landing starts at 1300 and ends at 0.

Actually, that is a small difference. Launch starts at 0, but landing ends at 2 m/s, leaving shock absorbers to reduce it to the final 0.

Comment: Someone doesn't understand basic relativity (Score -1) 81

And I don't mean the speed of light kind.

At 14 stories tall and traveling upwards of 1300 m/s (nearly 1 mi/s), stabilizing the Falcon 9 first stage for reentry is like trying to balance a rubber broomstick on your hand in the middle of a wind storm.

EXACTLY the same as takeoff. NO difference.

Comment: Re:summary of SCOTUS case law: "pppphhhhhhtttttt, (Score 1) 250

by Theaetetus (#48604931) Attached to: Sony Demands Press Destroy Leaked Documents

It can also note that disseminating parties may be liable for any damages to Sony that could arise. They need to prove damages though, and there's a lot of news sources involved. Will they do a reverse class-action suit or something? :P

No, but they could sue them collectively under a joint and several liability argument, saying "we were damaged by $X... feel free to figure out which of you pays which percentage of that amongst yourselves," based on a theory that by linking to each other in the articles, they were acting in concert. That wouldn't require proving which individual new source is responsible for which damage.

Comment: Re:IF? (Score 2) 250

by Theaetetus (#48604343) Attached to: Sony Demands Press Destroy Leaked Documents

Has there been any indication that newspapers and such are going to publish full scripts or anything like that? They might report on leaked scripts and torrents containing said scripts, but that's not what a newspaper is going to be interested in.

I think it was one of the Gawker media sites that posted a full (and amusingly terrible) powerpoint presentation from the leaked stuff, full of marketing and distribution plans.

Comment: Re:summary of SCOTUS case law: "pppphhhhhhtttttt, (Score 5, Interesting) 250

by Theaetetus (#48604325) Attached to: Sony Demands Press Destroy Leaked Documents

Mod parent up! (crap, I had points left yesterday.... :)

Parent makes the important point: There's existing SCOTUS case law for this, and Sony's legal-ish threats and demand for press et al to refrain from looking at embarrassing things wouldn't stand up in a stiff breeze, much less in a lower court.

Frankly I'm kind of surprised to see a relatively experienced lawyer such as Boies make a demand like this, even if he is a distinguished douchebag. Usually lawyers like him are concerned about appearances, and making laughable demands that evoke a Streisand effect is bad for business.

Unfortunately, parent is incorrect regarding the SCOTUS case law. Not the AC's fault, though - Eugene Volokh's quoted in the article and makes the same mistake. The case law refers specifically to publishing (actually re-playing) an illegally intercepted phone conversation on a matter of great public interest (specifically public teachers union negotiations with the school board). It explicitly says that its holding doesn't apply to trade secrets, private matters, or gossip... and what's the issue here? Trade secrets, private matters, and gossip.

Boies may be a douchebag, but he's a douchebag who actively practices law and apparently reads the cases in full, unlike the good Professor Volokh, who has never actually practiced.

Comment: IF? (Score 5, Insightful) 250

by Theaetetus (#48603815) Attached to: Sony Demands Press Destroy Leaked Documents

If Sony keeps doing it, their documents will be forever alive in the form of magnet links, formerly torrent file sharing technology.

Regardless, those documents will be floating around torrent sites, even if they do nothing. The horse has left the barn.

But this isn't about trying to actually keep the information under wraps - this is about trying to get some financial recompense. Like, someone let the horse out, and your neighbor suddenly has a sale on fresh horse meat... You're not getting your horse back, but maybe you should get a portion of their unlawfully gained profits.

In particular, the material includes both material under copyright, as well as trade secrets. Copyright law doesn't include a safe harbor for "but I'm a newspaper" or a generic "first amendment!" defense - while papers could publish short excerpts of the leaked info under fair use (17 USC 107), for news or commentary purposes, they could not, say, publish the entire script to the new Bond movie, relying on a defense of "well, we didn't steal it, and the first amendment says we can publish anything we want because we're the media."

Going further, many states' trade secret laws actually include explicit provisions about publishing trade secrets that were obtained unlawfully, even if you weren't the person who originally stole them. And while terrible law professor Eugene Volokh thinks that the Bartnicki case has a first amendment exemption, he's clearly never actually read it - SCOTUS specifically said that it doesn't apply to trade secrets, but for matters of public interest. Now, that may apply to things like Sony's CEO's salary, but it likely doesn't apply to things like advertising campaign plans or product release strategies.

So, if the media publishes the unlawfully obtained trade secrets or publishes the material under copyright in a way that exceeds the bounds of fair use, then they may be financially liable for Sony's damages. That doesn't put the horse back in the barn, since it's gone, man, but it does at least help pay for the new horse (and maybe a better lock).

Comment: Re:View angles (Score 1) 567

by Theaetetus (#48574219) Attached to: The Case For Flipping Your Monitor From Landscape to Portrait

Some monitors are make to be viewed landscape, and when rotated have horrible view angles. I found some at work where the view angle was so bad, only one eye would get a good picture, while the other eye showed a faded & discolored image. Rubber-necking around would find a small sweet spot for viewing.

TLDR; doesn't work well on some monitors.

Do three sentences really merit a TLDR?

You see but you do not observe. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes"