Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: Respect yourself (Score 1) 376

by preaction (#48928823) Attached to: Behind the MOOC Harassment Charges That Stunned MIT

We're going in circles now, and you keep putting words in my mouth.

Funny enough, there are reasons people steal. Doesn't make stealing right. People don't become mass murderers without some extremely fucked-up shit happening. Doesn't mean we shouldn't lock them up. But this analogy is terrible, because the woman violated no law by sending nude pictures to someone.

What you're saying is akin to saying that a murder _victim_ should be blamed, just a little bit, for being in the place where a murder was happening, and that's bullshit. Or that a mugging victim should be blamed, just a little, for handing over their wallet when faced with a gun, or a knife, which is equally bullshit. Or that someone in a subordinate position, like a student, should be blamed for doing what someone in a position of authority, like a professor, told them they had to do (and since sharing pictures is legal, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, Godwin's Law doesn't apply here).

So when someone (I'll use "she" in this example) is told to take nude pictures or she'll fail the class, or she'll get fired from her job, or she'll go to jail, or she'll be killed, it's her fault if she capitulates, but not her fault if she fails her class, or gets fired from her job, or goes to jail, or dies?

Anticipating the next go-round this circle: "Well, failing the class isn't as bad as dying, so you're blowing things out of proportion." Do we know her academic situation? Was this a required class? Was she on a scholarship or financial aid (they've got pretty strict performance requirements)? Is there really no reason she might think that the consequences of not doing what the professor said would be worse than doing what the professor said? Can you not imagine any scenario?

Comment: Re:Respect yourself (Score 1) 376

by preaction (#48888829) Attached to: Behind the MOOC Harassment Charges That Stunned MIT

I'm glad you live in a world without fear where all people can stand up and make a stand for what's right and doing so makes all the evil that humans do go away. I do not live in that world. I live in the real world.

In the real world, if you make a stand, you better be ready to get knocked on your ass. Not everyone wants that. In fact, some people have learned not to stand up, because every time they did, they got knocked on their ass. We call these people victims of abuse.

So, we all came together and said "These things are wrong, so we'll punish people who do them." Now not everyone has to take a stand themselves, alone, we can all stand together (or at least enough of us).

So you've blamed the victim and the victim's parents/upbringing. Strangely, an abuse victim had trouble dealing assertively with a new abusive situation.

Thankfully and correctly, you also blamed the perpetrator, and are raising a daughter that will hopefully never find herself in her own personal Kobayashi Maru.

Comment: Re:Fuck Me (Score 1) 553

by preaction (#48826969) Attached to: SystemD Gains New Networking Features

I did not say "All you have to do is." I said "That sounds easy to fix", and it is. Reparenting a process to init is a common idiom (fork + setsid, see `man 2 setsid`). (x)inetd is therefore capable of doing it, it just did not because of the constraints at the time.

I am well aware of modern design patterns, but thank you. Dependency resolution during startup is a great idea, but it is also something that could be saved statically (which is _exactly_ what the management people built around init did) because the startup resolution order only changes when something is added or removed from init. So, somehow, for decades, we got by with the "worse" approach.

I don't see how one would need to install X and ghostscript to get a tty, shell, and ls, unless one was using a distribution build by incompetents.

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.