Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 3, Insightful) 413

So it is settles then. You are an authoritarian who wants to impose his opinions on those who disagree with you and force women into a a score of years of servitude to satisfy your agenda.

Well, we currently do it for men. Do you have any good arguments for why forcing men into years of servitude is okay but forcing women into years of servitude is not? If it is okay to force $GENDER into servitude for years, why does it stop being okay when the gender changes?

Comment Re:No use fighting it (Score 1) 135

Some people will always pirate, sure, but 99% of people aren't going to ever bother if they can get what they're looking for conveniently and without paying through the nose for it.

True. They spent so much time fighting the internet rather than embracing it that piracy became the norm, it wasn't a matter of people being unwilling to pay but of studios not providing a channel. It was more convenient and ultimately you got a better product. Now we see streaming services that are even more convenient than piracy in most cases (yes there are people who dont have good enough internet connections or want to save for offline viewing, etc...) so studios should be embracing, rather than fighting this sort of technology.

It doesn't actually matter what the studios do. The biggest reason for selling fewer shows in the future is not going to be piracy, it's going to because they make crap shows. Same as with music - someone upthread pointed out that old music outsells new music. I dunno if it's true but it certainly sounds plausible - the new stuff is all crap.

Hell, a friend dropped by with a terabyte drive filled with recent shows. I've seen perhaps the first two episodes of each show but the only one I was willing to sit through was "How to get away with Murder".

Think about it - if I don't watch the shows when I already have it, basically for free, what chance do they have of selling me their shows? I sat down to "Orange is the New Black" because of the large number of people who said "don't miss this one". I found it boring - it's basically character development (I think - the shallow main character never developed much in the first two episodes). No plot, no twists, no suspense, no action, no witticisms, no humour, no profound enlightenment, no resolution to look forward to, no merit whatsoever. At least watching paint dry has some resolution to look forward to (When it's dry we can put on another coat).

OistnB is basically watching someone meander through their sentence, interspersed with flashbacks to display how shallow she is (presumably so we can see how much she's grown by the end of the show?). I suppose it's got the viewers it has due to the large number of lesbian sex-scenes, but hey, if I wanted to watch porn I wouldn't watch softcore porn. My wife and I purchased a large collection (some still on DVD) that we can watch instead.

I expect better when I want to watch a show. Perhaps after the next (final) season of Person of Interest I might cancel the damn TV subscription

Comment Re:Obligatory (Score 1) 662

I've posted my arguments on these points in detail several times. I'm not going to be sealined into repeating them for you now, since you seem perfectly capable of using the search function.

I mean, what's the point? I tell you I'm against something, you refuse to believe it and insist your interpretation of previous statements must be correct.

Sorry, no. I don't insist on anything but evidence. I've done this many times, only for you to go silent after getting asked for evidence.

There is literally nothing I can say to change you mind, no amount of explanation or elaboration will help, so why bother? Your mind is closed and I can't pry it open.

I'm not trying to convince you - I said you had faith-based arguments, and no amount of evidence moves faith. What I *am* doing is ensuring that your opinions on these things don't get mistaken for fact. Like your "evidence" (more women in CS in the 80's) of sexism in CS. I've already noticed that my repeated insistence on evidence for your sexism assertion means that you post that argument less and less.

It's funny, actually - you accuse me of a closed mind when you have closed your mind to any explanation (other than your faith-based one) for the dropping of women in CS (just one example out of many). Ask yourself, does an intellectually honest person make a god-of-the-gaps argument?

Comment Re:Obligatory (Score 1) 662

I was just using the language of the person I was replying to. So it depends what you mean.

Should we have segregated bathrooms? Yes.

Should we have a segregated society, like the old South Africa or something? No.

When people say "segregation" without any context, they generally mean the latter.

Which is why I quoted as much as possible and linked to the posts you made - all the context is in there. You still don't get it - your ideology is just as abhorrent to normal folk as those who claim that women aren't as capable in $INTELLECTUAL_ENDEAVOR as men.

Here's a link showing the decline of women in CS since the 80s. I've posted it before (but somehow you couldn't find that), and frankly I'm not your personal google butler.

Strawman - I never your numbers, I contended your repeated claims that is must be due to sexism. Where's your evidence that it's due to sexism? After all I never contended that the number of women is anything other than you claim for various years, I contended that sexism doesn't explain the difference in numbers.

Comment Re:Obligatory (Score 1) 662

Your memory is faulty. I'm against segregation.

Sorry, but you have gone full SJW. Random accusations that bare no relation to reality, based on things you misunderstood or didn't bother to read properly. Welcome to the valley of the bell curve.

Nope - you proposed that it would be better to segregate girls into their own CS class. You've proposed this multiple times.

From your post over here: "Segregation [in school classes] is the answer. "

From your post over here:So yeah, segregated bathrooms, changing rooms, CS classes, fine, there are clear reasons and no-one is disadvantaged.

From your post over here about yet another girls-only CS class: "In this case a specific need for segregation has been identified."

There's a ton more where that came from. The problem is that you do not view your ideology as extremist. You repeat oft-debunked statements in support of your ideology, hoping that this time someone won't bother with debunking your faith-based claim. And it's not like you don't know better - I see you get debunked with polite replies all the time, which you "conveniently" forget ... much like the way you "forgot" you are for segregation in your reply to me above.

As always, I'm happy to oblige with links to your specific mendacity :-) You make lots of claims ("Fewer women in CS now than in 80's due to sexism", "We know why womken aren't in CS because they tell us", etc) with nary a backing piece of evidence.

How about this: for your next claim, why don't you provide links to evidence, like the way us in the middle majority of the bell curve do? Like the way, in fact, I did above.

Comment Re:Obligatory (Score 1) 662

So basically we agree, except that I call them MRAs and you call them SJWs.

I doubt it - you've frequently opined that microagressions are a thing, which to many is the defining characteristic of the SJW. The only true common thing between both MRAs and SJWs is that they both look insane to the middle majority of the bell curve.

After all, I remember a post of yours that basically called for segregation... it's hard to believe you're not living in the fifties.

Comment Re:Some of this has already been said, but my top (Score 1) 1818

Please ignore all those users calling for bans, either banning users or banning ACS. Slashdot has long promoted totally free speech and banning users for what they say is exactly the reason that other sites have fallen.

It was promoted.

It wasn't always practiced.

Agreed, but "Only sometimes practiced" is not a good enough reason to remove it altogether.

Comment Re:New York Taxi Workers' Alliance (Score 1) 179

Heck, there's even one cab driver driving a tesla because the extra initial cost is offset by the lower running costs.

How does he make a profit on the limited range? Cabbies (over here anyway) might work for eight hours straight, sometimes twelve. Very little of that time is spent stationary.

Comment Re:Something's changed at Morgan's management (Score 1) 51

You want them to completely ditch the existing lineup? Why would they do that?

No mention of ditching, just that 'going electric' in this case is like Honda offering the Prius and Nissan the Leaf. They're still offering the 'traditional' lineup.

There's only two options here:

1. You can add electric cars to your existing lineup.

2. You can do electric-only cars and stop your existing lineup.

Once again I must ask - why on earth would they stop producing their existing cars just because they are producing electric cars?

Comment Re:First? (Score 1) 262

She admitted riding a bike with a motor in it. Your objections can't change reality.

From your own damn link:
"After my chain broke I got off and was told that there was something wrong with my bike. I didn’t know what was wrong. Then I saw that bike standing there. I don’t know how it go there I am more preoccupied with myself on days like that”.

"That bike belongs to a friend of mine. He bought it from me at the end of last season. It is exactly the same bike as what I ride. The friend had ridden round the course with my brother before the race. He had left the bike against the lorry. One of the mechanics must have thought it was my bike and cleaned it up and brought it to me.”
Where exactly did she admit to riding the motorised bike? You have severe reading and comprehension problems.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hey Ivan, check your six." -- Sidewinder missile jacket patch, showing a Sidewinder driving up the tail of a Russian Su-27