Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Classics (Score 1) 382

by iapetus (#47779637) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Are the Best Games To Have In Your Collection?

Hardly. Risk is a terrible game for friends - with some players being eliminated from the game long before the slow and tedious endgame, it's a bad choice for friendly gaming. There are plenty of far superior boardgames for such an environment - Settlers of Catan, Puerto Rico, Agricola spring to mind as strong choices.

Comment: Re:Oe noes! A compiler bug! (Score 1) 739

by iapetus (#47546247) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

Yes, it does. Because that's part of the Java Language Specification; any compiler that doesn't give a compile-time error in that situation isn't compliant with the JLS and thus isn't really a Java compiler.

14.21. Unreachable Statements

It is a compile-time error if a statement cannot be executed because it is unreachable.

Comment: Re: Lesson from this story...don't be a glass hole (Score 1) 1034

by iapetus (#46034187) Attached to: AMC Theaters Allegedly Calls FBI to Interrogate a Google Glass Wearer

Well, speaking as the one who can read and knows what a reductio ad absurdum is (as well as what makes a good analogy and what makes a weak and shoddy one) I'll leave you to wallow in your own stupid here. If your view is that a pair of glasses that could also record if it were turned on is entirely analogous to a recording device that has recording as its sole purpose then you're too far gone to help. The mobile phone analogy is a better one - it's a device that can record (and can do from a position of concealment), but has a perfectly reasonable alternative use. It's not one that's required in a cinema, obviously, but it's one that's clearly enough that people aren't stripped of their phones on entering the building and the FBI aren't called if anyone's seen using their phone or with their phone potentially recording from a concealed position in their clothes. With Google Glass in this case the device has a primary use that is required in a cinema - being able to see the screen properly. Your comparison to a video camera that has no need to be in a cinema in the first place and that has no other purpose in being pointed at a screen than to record it is either caused by a complete lack of wits or a complete lack of intellectual integrity. Though I suppose we need to give you credit and assume it might well be both.

My original point was this: vast numbers of people carry high-definition video recording devices into movie theatres every day. The vast majority of these people have those high-definition video recording devices concealed in such a way that they could potentially be recording the screen, or at least have the potential for concealing them in such a way. If we're going to make the assumption that anyone who could potentially be recording the screen is recording it - which is exactly the wrong assumption that was made here by both the theatre owners and the FBI, neither of whom attempted at any point to verify that assumption before things had been escalated to a ridiculous level - then we're going to have to start turning away a lot of people who turn up to watch a movie with a mobile phone and clothes.

There were ways to deal with this situation sensibly. Both parties could have avoided the issue - the customer by wearing standard prescription glasses, the theatre owner and the FBI by not being complete arses and making an assumption of guilt and escalating things way beyond where they needed to be.

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin