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


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

Comment Re:When is this ever false? (Score 1) 441

It's within my "rights" to call you a simpering faggot with a Napolean complex, but that doesn't necessarily make doing so the right (and/or moral) thing to do.

Maybe you should quit jerking off over these purely semantic notions you seem to have acquired, pull your head out of your ass, take a good long look around you, and form a spontaneous conclusion or two, based not upon "given Deeply Held Value x and stimulus of situation y ergo z", but rather "situation y is bullshit, pure and simple, ergo it is wrong, and if Deeply Held Value x contradicts this basic notion, then Deeply Held Value x must itself be less than fully correct, full-stop, end of sentence, end of chapter".

Comment Re:Good grief! (Score 2, Informative) 571

Here's the thing. The government really doesn't like going to court.

Requesting extradition means that the Feds are dead serious about prosecution.

Plea bargains are much less common - and much less generous - in the federal system.

Foreign based intrusions on US military networks do not get the kid glove treatment - no matter how trivial.

Comment Re:Well, something *has* changed (Score 1) 783

Is that the entire basis for "it was 14-year-old Willow whose dignity was flung in the mud,"? It sounds to me like the joke was clearly a reference to the daughter that got knocked up.

The fact that that daughter wasn't even present at the game is hardly relevant, considering it's obviously a joke and not a credible claim.

Any real criticism that Sarah Palin has had about her daughters was, as far as I know, all concerning how her family values apparently included getting knocked up before marriage.

Comment Re:How do they know? (Score 1) 132

The underlying quantum state *is* observable. Why wouldn't it be?

If you RTFA (and not even the paper is necessary for this), you will see that they are limited by the fidelity of their setup, ie. signal to noise. Hence, when they improve their apparatus, they will get more accurate results.

Comment I see a larger motive: (Score 1) 280

The cynic in me thinks it will go this way: They make this announcement today. For the next few months, they do absolutely nothing. Then, they fabricate a bunch of data, and announce that they've determined that 99% of all P2P traffic is protected by copyright. Authorities cowtow, and those "three-strikes" laws get put in place (and enforced) everywhere.

It doesn't matter that the data was faked...they expressly stated that it would all be anonymised and not linked to any specific how can anyone prove it's been faked?

Comment Join the wrong party. (Score 1) 531

When you steal something from a store, you are necessarily depriving some other person of that particular item. If I walk into Best Buy and walk out with a stolen eMachine, that's an eMachine that somebody else will never have. Granted, I'm sure there are those who would classify depriving somebody of an eMachine as "good Samitarianship" - but you get my basic point.

It should be needless to say, but by downloading the game through piratebay, I am not directly depriving anybody of that game*. So the two cases are different enough that you can't really take a "good for the goose, good for the gander" approach to this.

* - I suppose one could make the argument that by grabbing a working CD key and registering it online, I may be depriving somebody of that CD key. It'd be a technicality, but this is slashdot, after all. What remains, though, is that the eMachine in the above example is a limited resource by its very nature. The CD-key is an artificially limited construct, and while perhaps similar, I still do not feel the two situations really equate.

Comment Re:no (Score 2, Interesting) 531

Twist it around. By not pirating the game, you're putting some trust in Rockstar to attribute the shitty sales of the game to the copy protection, rather than one of the myriad "'old Hollywood' style" excuses of the past ("they didn't like it because the lead character was from Eastern Europe / because the packaging contained too much muave / because they were confused by the "open world" / because it was released on an odd-numbered day"). By not pirating the game, you're trusting Rockstar to get over the perhaps-well-intentioned but certainly-shallow advice of the suits. By not pirating the game, you're trusting the little guys of Rockstar to strike a blow for common sense, rather than go all Milgram on our asses. By not pirating the game, you're trusting Rockstar to give a fuck.

Why should we, the potential consumer, trust Rockstar, if that's how the majority of large game companies act?

Comment Re:no (Score 2, Insightful) 531

Yes, that is exactly it.

Anyone hoping to avoid SecuROM by downloading the game form Steam will also be disappointed,

I am going to avoid SecuROM by downloading the game from the pirate bay. Even though I'll buy the game.

Awesome, so Rockstar has the chance to get your $50, then have a shot at busting you for piracy as well? BONUS!

If mathematically you end up with the wrong answer, try multiplying by the page number.