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


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Rape (Score 1) 399

Some victims are reluctant to report assaults because they aren't sure whether a crime occurred

If as an adult, even a young one on a college campus, you don't KNOW if you were sexual assaulted, than I would argue you were NOT sexually assaulted. You just another special little snow flake that wants to blame someone else for the outcome, even if its nothing more than hurt feelings or shame, for your own poor choices.

Either something happened forcibly and against your will or it did not. You were coerced in some way or not. Its really pretty f'ing simple.

I am going to get accused of victim blaming here but I strongly feel the 'I was to drunk to consent' thing should not fly.

No, you're not going to get accused of victim blaming - you're going to get accused of drugging women to rape them. Bill Cosby didn't use force, so by your logic, all of those women consented.

If you are conscience enough to stand and speak you are conscious enough to consent, with proviso you have not been given an intoxicant without your knowledge.

Fortunately, the law doesn't work that way. The law also understands that there may be multiple intoxicants at play, some of which may be with the victim's knowledge, like alcohol; and some of which may not, such as GHB.

Its unfair to expect your 'attacker' to be able to evaluate your sobriety when they are also more than likely highly intoxicated as well.

Multiple studies with confessed rapists show that they are typically not intoxicated, while seeking out victims that are substantially intoxicated.

People simply have to be accountable for their own actions. If you knowing compromise your ability to make good decisions in a situation that isn't entirely safe, that includes only people you know well and trust completely you run the risk of making bad decisions.

The majority of rapists know their victims.

Basically, everything in your post is incorrect.

Comment Re:Will Any Effort Be Made To Validate The Report? (Score 1) 399

First, men can be the victims of rape and sexual assault too, and can use this app to report it.

Not only are men victims of rape and assault, according to CDC they are *more* victims of rape than women are.

No - according to the CDC, 18.3% of women and 1.4% of men experience rape. Roughly equal numbers experience other sexual violence - 5.6% and 5.3% respectively.

Comment Re:Seems like a much better business model (Score 1) 163

We already know that the typical Mac users is naive "there are no viruses for Mac!" and we also know there's a whole niche market of Apple users with more money than brains. I expect these people to haul in more money than the Windows ransomeware guys.

One potential problem - those Apple users with more money than brains also probably bought a Time Capsule backup device (because it's shiny and Apple says you need one and here's my credit card!), which means they've got constant incremental backups of all their files. Ransomware pops up, just roll back to pre-encryption.

Comment Re:Or perhaps... (Score 1) 618

Depends. Did she do the reviews of the games after playing them or not?

Or is gaming so super special that someone who's not a gamer isn't allowed to start playing, form an opinion and then write about it?

Well no one knows if she's played the games she's supposedly writing on. Though she has had people play them, in order to choreograph specific things in order to make up a talking point. The hitman section in the stripclub dressing room would be a good instance of that.

Perhaps it's just me, but if I was writing on a subject, I'd actually turn around and learn about it before writing about it. Especially if I want to have what I'm writing, be used as an academic source and for teaching materials. But who knows, maybe you have a much lower standard than most people, and are perfectly okay with that.

It's amazing how, in the space of two sentences, you go from "I don't know if she played the games" to "she didn't play the games".

Comment Re:Or perhaps... (Score 1) 618

Anita Sarkeesian reviewed a bunch of games, or more accurately started a kickstarted to make "Tropes versus women in videogames" and got a shitstorm of harassment. Are you claiming she wasn't in fact a victim of harassment?

Would that be, before or after she said she doesn't play video games?

Well after, but you already know that. You also know it's about the most inane criticism possible: she didn't play video games until starting her research project, at which point she played a lot of video games. The fact that she hadn't done the research before she started doing her research is not merely irrelevant, it's obvious to anyone who thinks about it for half a second.

Oh she got some harassment, of course in her world criticism = harassment. She even said as much in front of the UN. And of course one can't forget that she refuses to debate anyone, or anything she says. But wants her garbage to be put in place in schools, and used as teaching material. Well that seems great, how'd that work out for Jack Thompson and his "games cause people to become psychopaths" bit.

Was that Jack Thompson, or was that Christina Hoff Sommers? There's also Milo Yiannopolous, who calls gamers "overgrown manchildren" and "terminally beta".

And Zoe Quinn got a shitstorm of harassment over a review allegedly paid for by sex, except the review doesn't exist. So she got a shitstorm of harassment for something that never happend. Still going to claim she wasn't a victim of harassment?

You still can't figure it out huh? It wasn't a review, it was favorable coverage.

It was still two words, as the GP pointed out, in an article providing favorable coverage to 49 other games. But at least you admit it wasn't a review.

She got mentions over a pile of other indie games, not once but several times. Those articles were written by the same person, without disclosure.

Several implies what, three at least? Let's see your links.

Comment Re: Pin??? (Score 4, Interesting) 53

It is a trademark case, not a patent case. They wouldn't have complained if they had used another word to describe it. By the way, fair use relates to copyright, so the court almost certainly didn't rule it was fair use, they probably ruled that "pinning" is a generic word.

Both trademark and copyright have fair use doctrines, though I agree with you that I believe Subby meant the copyright one, in error. At the least, it's somewhat misleading because it implies that the court ruled that putting a snippet of something online was fair use from copyright infringement, which wasn't an issue.

In trademark, fair use is what allows us to say "Playboy Playmate Jenny McCarthy, noted anti-vax denier" - we're using Playboy's trademarks, but only to name the source and in a minimal way.

Here, this was really about whether "pinning" is a merely descriptive term for providing links and snippets. And yeah, it goes back to scrapbooking and certainly is just a descriptive term.

Comment Re:Jury competence? (Score 1) 312

I'm not really convinced that Apple evaluate patents properly. They have had this problem before, e.g. with standards essential patents that they didn't want to licence under the usual RAND terms.

The only case I can think of like that was Motorola v. Apple and that went very, very badly for Motorola. Their "usual RAND terms" were "give us a license to every patent you own, 20% of gross revenues, your firstborn son, and a pound of flesh" and were flabbergasted when that was found to be not reasonable at all.

Comment Re:Live by the sword, die by the sword. (Score 2) 312

Because they're not much of an innovator. This is not a troll. They've never been terribly good at inventing brand new things. What they do very well, arguably better than anyone else is taking a bunch of existing but not very popular technologies and producing an implementation which doesn't massively suck before anyone else.

I don't believbe I'm doing them a disservice with that, doing such a thing is clearly very hard else they wouldn't be the first people to do it after others have tried and failed. But it's not generally protectable with patents.

In actual fact, I think claiming Apple has made innovations where they haven't is actually doing them a disservice because it detracts from what they are uniquely good at.

Look at the history of things they're well known for:

The iPod: the canonical MP3 player. Not the first, afterall we know it had no wireless and less space than the Nomad (lame!) but by far the most popular and became synonymous with MP player. Due in large part because all the ones before had horrendous interfaces and other awful misfeatures.

One might say that the iPod was successful because of its excellent and intuitive interface. One might even say that it was an innovative interface. One that's patentable.

I think you're assuming that user interfaces and designs are not patentable, but that's not true at all.

Comment Re:He hasn't been charged (Score 0) 336

By US standards, he was charged, then dismissed of the crime, and is now being tried a second time for the same crime. Almost nowhere else in the world has the strict double jeopardy laws the US has, but if we apply US standards, the charges and process are invalid many times over for many different reasons.

No - in the US, double jeopardy rights attach after voir dire, when the jury is empaneled and sworn in. There are plenty of times that charges are brought, amended, dropped, re-added, etc. before trial, and that's all irrelevant. There is nothing about Assange's case that remotely resembles double jeopardy.

Comment Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! (Score 1) 336

That's not how things work here. The police typically interview you before charges are file. Assange has refused the interview.

No he hasn't. The Swedes are refusing to interview him in the Embassy. Now, why would that be? Think, think...

Because in Sweden, the defendant investigation is the last thing that happens before trial, and by law, trial must occur within one week?

Comment Re:not a very good article (Score 2) 186

But this argument pales next to the stupidity of the argument that a creature with a higher hearing range wouldn't be able to perceive our audible communications. Really? That's so stupid, I can't even stupid how stupid it's stupid. We have pets with higher hearing ranges, and they can literally understand what we are saying in some cases as their brains are sufficiently developed. They're claiming a smarter entity with more advanced senses won't be able to understand us? That's nothing short of idiotic.

Not to mention the fact that the article posited incredible hearing all the way up to 100kHz! Of course, that's really less than two and a half octaves higher than normal human hearing.

If you can't walk upright, you can't free your hands for masturbation.

Which is why the Tyrannosaurus Rex was always so sad.

Comment Re:It is not what you did .... (Score 3, Informative) 83

What accounts for the difference in punishments is that criminal procedure requires a much higher standard of evidence than the junky stuff allowed under civil procedure, and subject to an overall "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, rather than "preponderance of evidence." Then to arrive at a judgment requires a unanimous jury, not just a majority.

And they had all that and this guy was convicted, so the punishments are equal, right? No. What accounts for the difference is that this guy faced jail time and is now a convicted felon, while Thomas-Rasset did not and is not. And, as others noted, this guy could still be sued and face the same penalties as Thomas-Rasset did.

"What people have been reduced to are mere 3-D representations of their own data." -- Arthur Miller