Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score 0) 163

So tell me, in what benighted universe are we to hold them responsible for their sexual foibles

In the same universe where we don't just pat them on the head and say "isn't that sweet" when they do other illegal things that they should know are wrong. I'm sorry, but fourteen year olds are not "children" by every definition, they are old enough to know that some things are not appropriate. And this one demonstrated that he knew it was wrong because he used a service that was designed to delete the image. If it wasn't wrong, why shouldn't she be allowed to keep that image of him?

And sign in if you want a response next time, Obfuscant.

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You didn't respond to me, you responded to someone else. If you wanted to respond to me, you could have. There's a "reply" option on every message I post.

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 163

She then sends the picture to host of other people with the clear intent to hurt the boy, but that's fine.

Nobody said that was fine. They said that were she over 18 she could have been charged with "revenge porn" -- which is saying that it isn't fine, just that she's too young to be charged. And they didn't say she didn't end up on the same list, only that there was no information available to know she had.

How was he distributing the picture and she wasn't?

She was, and the article said she was.

Comment Re:The Power of the State. (Score 1) 163

What else is there to talk about here except for the complete lack of individual human rights?

I'm confused. Are you claiming that it is your "individual human right" to send naked pictures of yourself to any girl you might happen to know? How about her "individual human right" not to have pictures of your junk show up on her phone?

Or is it her "individual human right" to distribute that naked picture of you that you sent with the explicit intent that it be deleted soon after being received?

Whose "individual human rights" are we talking about here? And when did distributing porn to unsuspecting recipients, and then distribution of that to others as a way of exacting revenge, become a "human right"?

A right is protection against government oppression, this is a case of government oppressing a 14 year old child...

And I thought the scene with the muck collectors from Monty Python was ridiculous. "Help help, I'm being oppressed because I can't send pictures of my willy to every girl I know..."

Comment Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children?? (Score 4, Insightful) 163

Please? I mean here are two perfectly innocent young children

Huh? One of them is sending unsolicited porn to a girl he knows, the other is spreading that porn to all her friends. Neither is "perfectly innocent."

just BEGGING to be thrown to the judicial wolves, torn apart, consumed, and eaten

One of them is reported to have been put on the list of people who have been accused of crimes. The other we don't know what happened to. Neither one is being charged with anything, neither one is being "thrown to the judicial wolves" or "eaten."

I'm pretty sure that a fourteen year old boy should know it isn't appropriate to send naked pictures of himself to others. That's what makes it a thrill to do, and that's why he used a system deliberately designed to delete images after a short period of time. If it was "perfectly normal" and "perfectly innocent" to send such pictures, why use a system that deletes them automatically?

The girl knew that it was revenge to distribute that picture once she had it. She even had to bypass the normal snapchat limits to save the image, so it's not like her having the image to distribute was some innocent mistake. She had to go out of her way to do it.

Sorry, but actions have consequences, even stupid actions.

Comment Re:Regeneration (Score 1) 225

Actually, you start paying with the first; $500 a pop.

No, you wouldn't. You'd get a check for $2500 instead of $3000. There is a difference. It wasn't your money to start with, so you aren't losing it when it isn't handed to you.

But I understand the confusion. Many people also buy the line that the government is "losing money" when there is a tax cut, when the truth is that people are getting to keep more of their money, not that they're being allowed to keep more of the government's money.

Comment Re:Speed isn't Everything (Score 1) 141

So for the resident, it comes down to price vs. performance like any other consumer decision.

Except that the playing field is rigged in favor of the municipality. The "customer" is paying in taxes, and then is expected to make a free choice between the municipality service and a commercial company.

This is the same rigging that works against private schools. People who are already paying taxes to the public schools have less money and less incentive to buy a private education for their children, so private schools are the haven for rich kids.

Significantly, Comcast and AT&T seem to believe municipal broadband is a real threat since they are willing to spend bucketloads of money trying to kill it.

Of course it's a threat. A highly-regulated private company cannot compete against a government "company" that can set its own rules and dip into the general fund to cover any losses.

I believe in a functioning constitutional democracy. Where such exists, I support it.

Then you have no qualms with state DOMA laws. Ok.

The U.S. federal version seems to be dysfunctional ATM.

ATM? Automatic Teller Machine?

In any case, the US "federal version" is not a "constitutional democracy", it is a "democratic republic". Not even for the two national officeholders we elect is it a true democracy, we elect people who vote on our behalf.

Comment Re:Regeneration (Score 1) 225

Reverse the process. Give everyone $3,000 a year, but subtract $500 for each kid you have. You want 6 kids? Sure, go for it, but you're paying for them.

You wouldn't start "paying for them" under this system until you had seven, and then only if you forced payment on the negative balance. Most handouts don't work that way.

Comment Re:Toilet paper and timber? (Score 1) 225

If you need a roof or wall, you have to start with a large straight tree.

Only if you want a wooden house and want to pay a premium for specialty products. Otherwise, you buy SCL.

Or you use concrete and steel, aluminum and stryrofoam and vinyl.

Comment Re:hands in pockets (Score 2) 141

How strange, we were all told that capitalism solves every problem, through magic.

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. I've never seen anyone saying this, but then, I don't wander the Internet looking for ways to castigate capitalism.

Apparently it's better at turning trees into toilet paper (see article above) than infrastructure. Which, btw., is also falling apart in the US.

You mean all those bridges and highways that are operated by greedy capitalistic monolithic multinational corporations? All the sewer and water lines run by monopolistic megalomaniacal corporate CEOs?

You might be interested to know that those signs along the road that say "This road adopted by MacDonalds' employees" doesn't mean MacDonalds actually maintains that bit of infrastructure, just that the employees come by every so often to pick up trash on the roadside. The road is actually maintained by the greedy multinational capitalistic city, county, or state road departments.

Claiming that publicly funded and maintained infrastructure failures are caused by capitalism is a bit of a stretch.

Comment Re:Speed isn't Everything (Score 1) 141

They also have the choice to use Comcast or AT&T,

"Hmmm, let's see. I'm paying taxes now for a gigabit network connection I don't really need (but my neighbors wanted me to help them pay for) and I could use that, or I could pay taxes for a network I don't need AND pay Comcast for service I do want, too." If you don't see the unfair competition side of that statement, then there is nothing to discuss.

What's the problem? The people there voted for it. Do you not believe in democracy?

De Tocquville (sp?) had the right idea. Something along the lines of "a democracy can exist only until the majority learns they can tax the minority to pay for free stuff."

You apparently believe that democracies cannot be wrong, and yet I suspect that you would denounce as wrong those democracies that have voted in things like mandatory sentences for drug possession and defense of marriage laws.

Comment Re:Speed isn't Everything (Score 1) 141

I was simply commenting on the fact that many businesses likely would want static addressing. Not all, but many.

No, most city-sized businesses are not going to worry about static addressing, because most businesses that size are not going to want to be saddled with managing their own servers. They'll hire that function out to a full-time data center that can offer higher reliability and better security. Yes, there are high-profile failures in security, but you're still more likely to have a more secure site if you hire someone to do it that does it on a large scale than if you say "Hey, Billy was the high school computer geek, let's hire him to be our IT department!".

Is this unfair competition? Well, let's see. A city says "big company, if you want to operate here these are all the rules you have to obey", and then the city creates their own rules and uses the power of the taxpayer wallet to undercut the big company they claim they wanted to provide the service. I'd say that would be "yes". You can't restrict a company from providing a service and then use that failure as an excuse to do it at taxpayer expense, at least not in a fair way.

Comment Re:Disagree (Score 1) 591

I don't believe you.

That's your right. You have a right to be wrong. Even glaringly wrong, just like the student who said "1.0000" was the right answer.

Any student with half a brain or even less ego would haul your ass in front of the dean for such a stunt.

It wasn't a "stunt".

A) The student assured me he knew how to use the calculator, even after I told him it was an HP and not a TI/etc. "I didn't know how to use the calculator", which is never an excuse for wrong answers, is even less of an excuse here.

B) The answer was SEVEN ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE WRONG. That's off by a factor of TEN MILLION. Were he Mr. Gower making a prescription for you and instead of a concentration of medicine that was 1E-7 he gave you 1E0, you'd probably be dead.

C) The topic of quiz was buffers and pH. An answer of "1.0000" for a hydrogen ion concentration is so ridiculous in both value and precision that any "student with half a brain or even less" would have known the answer was wrong.

D) The prof thought it was the right thing to do.

You are there to teach and grade work.

I did both. That student will remember not to blindly trust the output of a computing device ever again. That's a lesson well learned. And I obviously graded his work, which included his failure to sanity check a simple answer.

They are customers.

They are buying an education. They are not traditional customers in that the phrase "the customer is always right" is patently absurd for them. He got an education.

If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization.