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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:The Power of the State. (Score 1) 242

Because someone is claiming that basic "human rights" are being violated and the kid is being oppressed. I want to know what "human right" we're talking about. Can you tell me? Is there a basic "human right" to send pictures of your willy to any girl you know? What has the world come to when we make such nonsense a "human right"?

He was put on a registry without trial. As an american looking at this, that is a violation of his liberty. It may not be a 'human right' to send a pic, but it's not an affront to anyone's rights to receive one either. What has the world come to when we insist on breeding oversensitivity into whole generations, then enact crazy punishments on those who 'trigger' them? I also find it interesting that she wasn't charged for 'distributing child pornography.' We've already had a few kids here in the states trampled by those laws..laws that were meant to protect them. I guess now we know the true intentions of the advocates who pushed for them.

You don't know this, and it isn't your place to judge on her behalf. Nobody was thrown into a gulag over this.

It isn't her 'human right' to expect everyone else to give a shit about her feelings over such trivial events either. Despite what happened here, there are plenty of men out there who were thrown into both figurative and literal gulags over shit far less. A registry listing is no minor matter.

But that's not a valid argument for saying that burglary isn't wrong, just as you not minding if people send you naked pictures of themselves is an argument against it being wrong when others are the recipients.

Stealing a tv != sending a picture. One is theft of property, the other is ???

Wait a minute. He can't be expected to "know better" when it comes to whether it is appropriate to send the picture in the first place, but he is supposed to "know better" that the girl would know how to bypass the "delete automatically" feature of snapchat? "Should have known better" is a two-edged sword here.

He should have known the natural consequences of distributing a nude picture of himself over to someone else, yes. Your 'appropriateness' is merely something imposed by people who obviously want others to conform to their moral expectations.

It wasn't a lasting mark on a predator list.

Yes it is. For 10 years. Did you read the article? It's a list that will inform any employer of this incident, so it's close enough.

I have a "crush" on your teenage daughter. You won't mind if I send her naked pictures of myself, then? She can just delete them if she doesn't want to see them, and it won't cause her any harm, right? It's harmless fun.

If that's all you're going to do, go ahead. If she doesn't like it, she'll delete it. If she doesn't know already, I'll explain to her how she shouldn't trust random strangers and how to put you on ignore. Since she's my daughter, she'd hopefully have had that sensibility since childhood. Anyway, this example is not valid either. This issue concerns two adolescents. There's no mention of persistent behavior, which is why I don't agree with him being treated as a predator into his 20s for some stupid impulsive thing he did over an adolescent crush.

That's why he got such a light slap on the wrist and isn't standing in a dock facing a judge. And nobody is saying he should be.

No, but being placed on that list is effectively treating him as someone who has, and was found guilty.

Comment Re:The Power of the State. (Score 1) 242

Why are you confused? The issue's simple once you toss aside the legal pedantry. Before we send 14 yos to the gulag (or add them to scarlet letter 'lists') over a picture, there should be responsibility for showing how harm was done. I know if I received a picture of a naked human, I'd laugh and delete. It might be unwanted, yes, but that's not the same thing as harm. I won't be scarred for life and neither will this girl. Now, if the kid didn't want the picture distributed by her, he should've known better.

Who cares what the lawyers/politicians think. They're only interested in looking like bastions of morality they can't possibly be living up to just to keep their jobs. You have a brain, use it. Justify why you think such a lasting mark like a predator list is warranted for 'a' picture sent probably to a crush. I think a talking to is all that's needed. His pic being spread around is a natural consequence of his choice, and is punishment enough. This seems like a case of 'stupid kid' not a case of a hardened pervert, and should be treated as such.

Comment Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score 1) 242

One of them is reported to have been put on the list of people who have been accused of crimes.

Societies with 'lists' like this hardly have good track records for justice of any sort. So much for responsibility, right? ..and it looks like the girl wasn't listed for spreading the pic. So much for consequences if you've got the right genitalia, right?

As far as I can see, the only serious consequences are those that people who think like you chose to impose. Perhaps you should consider the consequences of that.

Comment Re:Actually, the common saying... (Score 1) 349

Except that no it's not because your hand is on the mouse. Spamming search boxes over a shitty UI doesn't make it better. A small menu with a list of commonly used programs (+hotkeys) is still faster than memorizing magic incantations that make the search engine bring up what you're looking for.

Comment Re:And? (Score 2) 205

No, actually it's more about keeping a high enough minimum framerate so that the game doesn't hitch, while having as much eye candy as possible. Benchmarks are done with vsync turned off to see comparative results of how much headroom is available, which is why you see comparisons done at high framerates. It is also done to reduce lagtime between screen and input updates, depending how the game in question renders. There are also those of us who aren't blind and can see a noticeable difference between 16 and 8ms frames and build accordingly. This is why you see bitching when a game is framerate capped. There's a much larger contingent who wants high resolution over framerate, and as benches show, even 3 of the best gpus can't guarantee 16ms frames at those resolutions.

Gaming machines draw more than the $1500 laptop, but they can also do a lot more, too. They also do a great job doubling as workstations for those of us who can't afford $5000 cpus and overpriced 'workstation' class hardware. The gaming box, especially with judicious overclocking, fills the middle ground between data entry secretary boxes and $10k autodesk workstations, making high performance accessible to those with relatively limited funds.

Your analogy is shit. Yes, a good player can play on a shit system and score, but he'll do far better on a modern system and have a much better time doing so. Of course, the type of game, its engine, and its assets, matter greatly as well.

Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.

Working...