Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Actually, the truth is somewhat different. (Score 1) 1033

The majority of the people who voted checked the box for "no award." I can see that by reading posts from the rest of the thread, as you instruct me to do. You're suggesting that these people who voted not to grant any award to anyone didn't actually read the material that they were voting on? That they were denying this award to everyone solely because someone told them to vote that way? That this whole argument is all a bunch of rhetoric from people who don't care about the thing they're ruining in the process, but are just using it to push their agenda?


Comment Re:Actually, the truth is somewhat different. (Score 1) 1033

Jealous and stupid are subjective, but I don't see where you're getting hypocrites from. They didn't like the direction in which the awards were going, so they worked to change it.

Usually when someone works to get people to vote a certain way we call that "campaigning," but "gaming the nominations" is, I suppose, another way to put it.

Comment Re:Actually, the truth is somewhat different. (Score 1) 1033

The evidence from the puppies is the awards given to their non-preferred works. They come along and say: "Look at how the Hugos are being awarded to preachy books, obviously being voted on by preachy people." QED

Result: "Let's organize some non-preachy people (i.e.: people who agree with us) to get the Hugos awarded to the books we like instead." It doesn't have to be some malevolent conspiracy, all awards are like that.

Comment Worst summary ever. (Score 1) 54

Nothing to do with sustainability, nothing to do with robotic surgeons: worst summary ever. Not that I blame the submitter for this, it's the article which says "robot" when it really means remote controlled instrument, and "sustainability" when it's really talking about inadequate training. This is ridiculous though. I had this brief vision of robotic surgeons operating via some machine learning algorithm and... sustainability something... I hadn't worked out how sustainability factored into it before my illusion was dashed. Maybe they were running out of humans or something.

Comment Re:Closed Ecosystem (Score 1) 92

That 2.x distro was the last that Google did for the Nexus One, but I'm running 4.4.4 (Carbon rom) on mine just fine. And I installed that... a year ago? There's probably a more recent one now.

I too would like better standardization on the hardware, but it doesn't seem as though the device manufacturers are willing to go for that. Everyone wants their own non-standard custom sparkly feature, to make their junky phone stand out from everyone else's. I'm not sure Google deserves all or even the majority of the blame there.

Comment Re:This summary is wrong, they are banning content (Score 1) 164

Well, they did say that they would ban some subs dedicated to showing pictures of corpses under the same pretext. I haven't been to any of those subs, so I just let that slide, but that could be as you describe. Just showing a dead body may be distasteful, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with violence.

Comment Re:Ever killed a poacher? (Score 1) 176

The Laredo case was a little more than shooting someone in his trailer. Here:

Gonzalez had endured several break-ins at his trailer when the four boys, ranging in age from 11 to 15, broke in at night. Gonzalez, who was in a nearby building at the time, went into the trailer and confronted the boys with a 16-gauge shotgun. Then he forced the boys, who were unarmed, to their knees, attorneys on both sides said.

The survivors said they were begging for forgiveness when Gonzalez hit them with the barrel of the shotgun and kicked them repeatedly. Then, the medical examiner testified, Anguiano was shot in the back at close range. Two mashed Twinkies and some cookies were stuffed in the pockets of his shorts.

Another boy, Jesus Soto Jr., 16, testified that Gonzalez ordered them at gunpoint to take Anguiano’s body outside.

Comment Re:Ever killed a poacher? (Score 2) 176

That's not what legislation on the subject says, at least not in many states. In Texas, for example, it's perfectly legal to shoot someone in the back who is running away from you and poses no danger to yourself or your family as long as they're carrying some possession of yours. Any possession, no matter how trivial.

Comment Re:No chance of winning (Score 4, Insightful) 176

We don't encourage people to stalk and kill murderers, rapists etc.

... Well, we make games about it. And movies. And books, and comic books, and we plaster the faces of our fictional vigilantes all over billboards and buses and soft drink cups and onto the toys that our children play with.

I mean, we don't encourage it. ::wink:: But yeah, we encourage it.

Comment Re: This summary is wrong, they are banning conten (Score 1) 164

Posting personal data is banned by a separate rule. I was using their example: advocating for drugs is okay, advocating for rape is not. They reason they give for that is violence, though they allow promoting violence in other contexts. I gave the example of vigilantism, which is also illegal.

Comment Re:Medical Disagree; A European example (Score 1) 265

The procedure isn't exactly the same, but something very similar already exists in the US (it varies somewhat state by state). The difference with this bill is that the doctor would now have the option to detain unilaterally, without the approval from the mayor or a request from a family member. Also it would be any doctor who could do this, not just a psychiatrist. A cardiologist, for example.

Comment This summary is wrong, they are banning content (Score 4, Informative) 164

Reddit introducing three tier content tiers: approved / hidden / banned. They announced that they would hide some of the undesirable content, as the summary said, but they are outright banning other content - they gave the example of /r/rapingwomen as a subreddit which would be banned, not hidden.

The differentiator between a sub to be banned and a sub to be hidden is officially the promotion of violence. Given the unlikelihood they that would start banning subs like /r/justiceporn though, the real differentiator is probably better characterized as: "subs which we don't like and which also have a violence theme."

When you make your mark in the world, watch out for guys with erasers. -- The Wall Street Journal