Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Well, I guess I've got to watch it now. (Score 1) 356

by xski (#49204447) Attached to: Indian Gov't Wants Worldwide Ban On Rape Documentary, Including Online
Let me guess, you're up in arms due to the word 'shyster'. Try select, right click, Search for ...

Note the relevant bit: Various false etymologies have suggested an anti-Semitic origin, but there is no proof for that.


The etymology of the word is not generally agreed upon. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says it is based on the German Scheißer (literally "shitter" but also used to refer to deceivers),[1] but the Oxford English Dictionary describes it as "of obscure origin", possibly deriving from a historical sense of "shy" meaning disreputable.[2] Various false etymologies have suggested an anti-Semitic origin, but there is no proof for that.[3] One source claims that the term originated in Philadelphia in 1843 from a disreputable attorney named "Schuster."[4]

Comment: Re:Do a prenup (Score 2, Insightful) 447

by xski (#48130699) Attached to: Statisticians Uncover What Makes For a Stable Marriage

If both party's motives are pure, they should have no problem with one.

Well, if someone asks for a pre-nup he or she is already considering divorce to be a event with a rather high likelyhood. Is it really smart to marry someone who considers divorce a likely event?

It means nothing of the sort. It means they understand that life isn't a fairy tale, that anything is possible in human relations and that includes divorce, like it or not. Is it really smart to marry someone who lives in a fantasy land where bad things like divorce don't happen? Or worse, just don't happen to them because they're somehow special? Likelihood isn't the issue. Possibility is. Its always possible.

+ - One of the Most Alarming Internet Proposals I've Ever Seen->

Submitted by Lauren Weinstein
Lauren Weinstein writes: You'd think that with so many concerns these days about whether the likes of AT&T, Verizon, and other telecom companies can be trusted not to turn our data over to third parties whom we haven't authorized, that a plan to formalize a mechanism for ISP and other "man-in-the-middle" snooping would be laughed off the Net.

But apparently the authors of IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) Internet-Draft "Explicit Trusted Proxy in HTTP/2.0" (14 Feb 2014) haven't gotten the message.

What they propose for the new HTTP/2.0 protocol is nothing short of officially sanctioned snooping.

Link to Original Source

Logic is a pretty flower that smells bad.