Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Exactly. NEVER change your email address. (Score 2) 269 269

That's great unless, for anyone of a number of reasons, you don't want to be thatgeek@college.edu for the rest of your life.

What free e-mail address? My university canned all my accounts several years after I finally got around to graduating. That's a lot of overhead for them to have to deal with I wouldn't expect that to live forever.

Comment: Re:Prenda? (Score 4, Informative) 75 75

Ditto . . .

Prenda Law a.k.a. Team Prenda

Prenda Law, also known as Steele | Hansmeier PLLP and Anti-Piracy Law Group,[3] was a Chicago-based law firm that ostensibly operated by undertaking litigation against copyright infringement, but was later characterized by the United States District Court for Central California in a May 2013 ruling as a "porno-trolling collective"[4]:2 whose business model "relies on deception",[4]:8 and which resembled most closely a conspiracy[4]:FOF.1 p.3 and racketeering enterprise,[4]:p.10 referring in the judgment to RICO, the United States Federal anti-racketeering law.[4]:p.10[5] The firm ostensibly dissolved itself in July 2013 shortly after the adverse ruling[6] (although onlookers describe Alpha Law Firm LLC as its apparent replacement[7]), while in 2014, ABA Journal-Law News described the "Prenda Law saga" as entering "legal folklore".[8] [...]

My head hurts now

Comment: Most Stunning Fact (Score 1) 206 206

Charter is a poorly managed company and has been for a long time

When I heard about the merger and thought back on Charter's past and what I've heard from friends about them and my personal experience in dealing with them on behalf of friends and family, I was left wondering:

  1. Where did Charter get $56 billion in disposable income?
  2. Who in their right mind would loan Charter any portion of those funds?

Comment: Re:Philophantasy (Score 2) 152 152

Yet the only way I can imagine meeting that goal is to have a self-aware AI that can in real time (actually it might have to be prescient) determine the users thought process so that it can morph the UI into a state that will present the information to the user in a manner that will lead them to the right conclusion. We can now move on to a discussion of perception and truth.

Comment: Re:Legal Schmegal (Score 1) 336 336

I do believe it is as simple, and obvious, as that, caps or not ,chimpanzees, aren't persons. I abide Merriam Webster's definition of person. Chimpanzees, may be self aware and possess a modicum of language yet this does not make them persons.

While, I would assert, that all persons are humans, I would not assert that all persons are strictly Homo sapiens but in fact contain a fair bit of Homo neanderthalensis.

One day may come and one day we may be visited by extraterrestrials and knowing humans, it may well be a mortal insult to call them persons. On That Day(tm) the question can be revisited and some will choose to expand the definition of person, others will want to refer to them as what they are, or create and define a new noun.

Comment: Legal Schmegal (Score 1) 336 336

Should we treat chimpanzees that way we do? NO

Are chimpanzees feeling, intelligent animals? YES

Are chimpanzees persons? NO

In may cases the way we treat animals or allow them to be treated is appalling. The same is also true of how humans treat other humans, as well. I'm left to wonder how long before the fact that I've had two of my dogs euthanized is no longer a legal act? The thought of having to prolong the suffering of or put them through treatment that has little chance of success and a high chance of increasing their suffering and shortening their lives, pains me deeply. There is a long list of potential unintended consequences to consider.

Comment: How Did We Get Here? (Score 1) 234 234

While I strongly believe this is a Bad Idea(tm) of epic proportions with a list of unintended consequences that seemingly has no end, after my initial visceral reaction, I am left to wonder. What led anyone, or group of anyone's, to think this was the answer? Even assuming we are all Good People(tm), do they believe someone will report an incident just because they can do some anonymously? Okay, so we'll put their potential targets on notice but, the report isn't really actionable. The attacker will still be at large and free to prey on someone else.

Anonymous reporting simply seems to be the wrong direction. What about actually changing how we treat and support the victims?

Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.

Working...