Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Worst summary ever. (Score 1) 54 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 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) 164 164

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) 176 176

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) 176 176

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) 176 176

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) 164 164

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) 265 265

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) 164 164

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."

Comment Re:Feels weird agreeing with scientologists (Score 0) 265 265

This doesn't seem to be an accurate portrayal of the bill at hand. The CDC already has the power to apply and enforce quarantine.

The summary says that each individual doctor would be able to make up a reason for detaining you if they wished, and apparently you wouldn't even have to be a danger to others.

Comment Feels weird agreeing with scientologists (Score 3, Interesting) 265 265

It feels weird agreeing with scientologists, but you know how it goes with a broken clock.

Doctors get an awful lot of trust, much of it deserved and most of it necessary, given what they do, but seeing a doctor shouldn't mean risking my freedom. Even temporarily.

Happiness is a positive cash flow.