Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


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: Re:Last straw? (Score 5, Interesting) 343

Finally, someone uses their brain. Sure, we could send a big army over there and stomp them into the ground. But then what?

And if anyone thinks Saddam's dead-enders were a big headache, what do you suppose a bunch of religious zealots will be?

Cue Mencken on problems and solutions.

Comment: Why bring that up ? (Score 4, Insightful) 114

by aepervius (#49158975) Attached to: Craig Brittain (Revenge Porn King) Sues For Use of Image
Even in the sex-free-est society, revenge porn is not seen as being good. The guy is an asshole (and anybody having posted photo there without consent) and may his reputation follow him around. This has nothing to do with sex being shameful or not, and everything to do with consent and revenge.

Comment: Re:this is one more reason (Score 1) 129

by gnasher719 (#49158071) Attached to: Under US Pressure, PayPal Stops Working With Mega

No slippery slope, is in Ammendment 14 the equal protection of the laws. If a baker cannot decide who to do business with, the bank can not decide who to do business with. Before this there were laws that applied to blacks that didn't apply to whites and you are claiming we need to go back to it because of "slippery slope".

A baker cannot refuse to do business with a person because of that person's protected status, like gender, race, etc etc.

A baker _can_ refuse to do business with a person that he dislikes, for example with a supporter of a football club that the baker dislikes, or with a person that has caused trouble in the store before.

Banks can refuse to do business for the same reasons. Now the bank manager will not refuse service to a person that he dislikes, not because it would be illegal (it isn't) but because his bank doesn't like losing business. But he will refuse service to a person or company that will cause the bank trouble.

Comment: Re:Just a distraction from the real fail... (Score 2) 46

by gnasher719 (#49158055) Attached to: Uber Discloses Database Breach, Targets GitHub With Subpoena

Why would they? They'll simply rise a lawsuit demanding damages against them all. Since that's a civil suit, the accused need to prove their innocence, which will take years and absurd amounts of money - or they can settle out of court with Uber for a couple thousand dollars.

Since they know or should know that most of the people accessing that site haven't done anything wrong, that could get them into deep trouble. And Uber has deep pockets filled with a billion dollars of investor's money, and some lawyer will take them on and make a mint.

Comment: Re:Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More R (Score 1) 176

by rtb61 (#49157587) Attached to: Foxconn Factories' Future: Fewer Humans, More Robots

You mean all those people we don't need to do the work yet we need them to buy the product, else we don't have any need to make the product and thus have no need of robots.

So we need to restructure out of wasteful mass consumption and shift to more sustainable with a focus on quality, durability and fit for life (products that last your lifetime, rather than fad or disposable products). So with robotics the model needs to change, from greed based to need based. With robotics who do we get rid of the employers or the employees. It makes far more logical sense to eliminate the employers, rather than the employees. The employees employ the robots thus eliminating the need for employers.

If it's not in the computer, it doesn't exist.