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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Most Unbiased Slashdot Gamergate Article (Score 1) 548

by gsslay (#48632297) Attached to: FBI Confirms Open Investigation Into Gamergate

But, but, but you don't understand! Gamers are having games that are no good forced on them through an evil conspiracy by game companies with journalists! They are having to spend hours trudging through dull games that are not fun! They are being blackmailed into spending thousands on in-game purchases, otherwise they won't reach level 100 and their lives will be worthless!

The number of basic human rights that are being violated here are beyond count! Why does no-one care??!!

Comment: Re:Until Sony caved, yes.... (Score 1) 580

by gsslay (#48624373) Attached to: Top Five Theaters Won't Show "The Interview" Sony Cancels Release

Another internet tough guy.

Look at it this way. Are you prepared to go see a mediocre movie, where there's a slight chance of the cinema being targeted for a terrorist attack (made greater because it is the only cinema showing it), just to prove a point? And if the worse happened, you (or your bereaved family) would in no way ever consider suing both cinema and Sony for negligence in showing it, when they knew there was a chance of this happening?

If you aren't prepared to do all the above, why should anyone else?

Comment: Re: First amendment? (Score 1) 250

by gsslay (#48607999) Attached to: Sony Demands Press Destroy Leaked Documents

2. "Rudin called Angelina Jolie a "minimally talented spoiled brat" in an email exchange with Pascal." Outrageous!! How dare a film producer hold a negative opinion about an actress!!

3. Erm, isn't holding personal info exactly what HR departments are supposed to do? If this related to company health insurance policies, how are they expected to not know about it? Isn't the real crime here the deliberate leaking of this private information?

4. No, what you have there is evidence that Jennifer Lawrence staring in a movie is worth less than Christian Bale or Bradley Cooper. Unfortunate for Lawrence, but I think she'll manage to struggle by.

Comment: Re:Hiding evidence (Score 1) 192

by gsslay (#48563157) Attached to: Microsoft To US Gov't: the World's Servers Are Not Yours For the Taking

Let's look at it this way.

Say, for instance, it has been suggested a popular soft drink gave you cancer. The company who make the drink have investigated this, found it to be true, but are spending millions covering up, denying and rubbishing the suggestions. We're talking a massive scale lie and fraud here. They are being so successful at doing this that you are convinced, and are happily continuing to consume the drink. You've got a can of it by your computer right now.

A few years from now you're going to discover you've been lied to, and it's almost certainly going to kill you.

Still think you'll have nothing to complain about? Did they force you to buy that can? Are they putting it to your lips? Nope, it's all your decision. The fact that you are being tricked doesn't matter. Man up, sucker.

Comment: Re:C is very relevant in 2014, (Score 5, Interesting) 641

by gsslay (#48553809) Attached to: How Relevant is C in 2014?

It's like when you drunk drive and think you're just fine.

Well the problem there is you're drunk, not that you can drive. C is a great language, and it gives its programmers a great deal of power and flexibility. But with that comes responsibility not to code like an idiot. If you're going to wield its power carelessly, of course you're a danger.

Perhaps C's greatest weakness is that it places too much trust in the coder, where other languages don't.

Comment: Re: Good (Score 1) 134

by gsslay (#48473945) Attached to: Wikipedia's "Complicated" Relationship With Net Neutrality

No, I think you'll find that was written in all seriousness. Not all writers and readers of Conservapedia may agree whole-heartedly on its sentiments, but Conservapedia has never had a problem with contributors bringing their own personal opinions into edits. (As long as they don't markedly differ from the owners of Conservapedia.)

Comment: Re:Dear Sony, I am delighted! (Score 1) 155

by gsslay (#48465779) Attached to: Sony Pictures Computer Sytems Shut Down After Ransomware Hack

Well that seems like a reasonable request, but companies are not obliged to help you fix the situation you've got yourself into. You in a situation where you am 100% to blame, but somehow you get to demand that the company assist you?

If I bought a Blueray and lost the case, so I no longer knew who appears in it, are the company obliged to run a service where I can buy an empty case to replace it? After all, I already have the disk, and my licence, they have no right to force me to buy them again!

Or if I bought a pack of cards, do I get to demand that the manufacturer of the cards also sells single cards, for when I lose one? What use is a pack missing one card? I demand the manufacturer provides this service because I am a customer who has already purchased 51 cards!

There comes a point when there is no profit to be made in helping out customers who are in a position of their own doing. Companies have no obligation to provide additional services that don't benefit them.

Comment: Re:Dear Sony, I am delighted! (Score 0) 155

by gsslay (#48458301) Attached to: Sony Pictures Computer Sytems Shut Down After Ransomware Hack

Your license to play the movie is on the disk. Sony wants to verify this license. If you break the disk, you have destroyed your license. If you copy the disk without the license on it, you cannot prove you have a license.

Unless you're expecting Sony to keep a record of all those who have purchased a licence, by whatever means through millions of retail channels, you need to be the one who retains the licence. If you destroy the license, or keep it elsewhere, what proof do you have that you are licensed?

I'm not saying it isn't a pain, but it's perfectly logical and reasonable.

"Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even one which cannot be justified on any other grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC.

Working...