Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Well, sure, but... (Score 2) 208 208

and, naturally, I will now get modded down to (-1, Troll/Flamebait/whatever) for daring to state the truth

But here's the thing, and this is a really important thing: while some things you say are true, most of what you're saying is at this point speculation. And honestly, you sound more than a bit unhinged to me.

Comment Re:Swift (Score 1) 337 337

BZZZT! No.

Web pages (the kind you're talking about, anyway) do not employ logic. They do not employ any kind of procedural operations. They do not employ the concept of several / many / hundreds of moving parts. Web pages of the kind you are referring to are little more than RTF documents. There is plenty of convincing evidence that the general population can use word processors. There is no such evidence that the general population can deal with even the most basic coding constructs.

Comment Re: Swift (Score 1) 337 337

Or programmers who use a bunch of bested if statements because they don't understand XOR, or freak out when they see a ?: statement.

To be fair, I've seen some genuine coding atrocities committed with ternary operations. The programmer thought he was being clever. He was so clever, in fact, that a year later he couldn't quite tease apart all the edge cases in his very compact (and largely impenetrable) code.

I'd call that bad code.

Comment Re:11 rear enders (Score 2) 549 549

Obeying every traffic law guarantees getting in accidents. It might not legally be the robot's fault but they did cause it because they aren't following the rules of the road. Because of that, they flow against the normal progression of traffic and cause disruptions which lead to accidents.

This is complete and utter bullshit. Far be it for me to defend Google (*spit*) but to even suggest that the Google car had any culpability here is incredibly stupid.

Comment Re:Tidal? (Score 2, Insightful) 574 574

What his excuse for not putting his music on there?

Because it's not really about the sound quality, as he asserts.

As it happens, I've listened to Neil Young on and off over the years. Excellent sound fidelity is definitely NOT especially noticeable on his records, nor is excellent sound fidelity something that his music particularly benefits from. His strengths lie elsewhere, which is why this whole PONO thing and now his fake streaming protestations ring especially hollow.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 1) 581 581

I would argue that if the places that exist to be heard are so small that they are barely noticed, that is an effective stifling of free speech.

Would you in the same breath argue that you have the same right to be heard as everyone else on the planet (or the country of your choice)? If my posts aren't elevated to the front page of reddit, does that mean that censorship is occurring because my voice isn't being heard as widely?

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 1) 581 581

No, censorship is when something is censored. Government censorship is when the government censors something. Someone might even self-censor to avoid offending others, even out of pure politeness.

I think most of the semantic confusion here boils down to the fact that censorship isn't precisely the opposite of free speech.

Even when a corporation engages in censorship, that does not in fact strip an individual of their right to free speech. It just means that the corporation isn't willing to help the individual exercise their right to free speech. There may be other corporations that are, and there may be other avenues (i.e. the public square) where the individual is still free to engage in free speech.

In order for censorship to be the precise opposite of free speech, it would have to take place in all contexts, not just the context that a given corporation happens to control. Hence, the reason why the First Amendment is focused on prohibiting government censorship, and why censorship in other contexts is so much less important.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 1) 581 581

Private censorship is still censorship, and it can potentially become as big of a threat to social progress as speech repressed by the government. For example. lots of social issues have been avoided in mainstream media because of corporate/political incentives to stay quiet about the subject.

Not exactly. Sure, corporations could collude and tend to reduce the audience that one has access to. But those corporations, in all likelihood, would be unable to stop that individual from standing in a public square (on a proverbial soap box) and delivering their message directly to the unwitting public. So the individual still has an audience, but the audience may not be as big as the individual would like. Is that still censorship? No, I don't believe that it is. The person still has all the elements of free speech. The fact that the individual doesn't have as large an audience as they would like is really very much secondary.

On the flip side, if the corporations were obligated to help every individual reach as large of an audience as they would like, what do you think the practical consequences would be? To start with, we as fellow individuals would be drowning in a sea of literally billions of unwanted messages.

I know which side you are arguing for. But I am fairly confident that if you thought about it for more than 10 nanoseconds, you wouldn't actually want what you're arguing for.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 1) 581 581

Similarly, being in prison doesn't prevent you from voicing your opinions. Nor does being fined millions of dollars (just earn more money, citizen, so you too can enjoy the same freedoms of billionaires!) Nor does it prevent you from setting up a website to discuss controversial opinions.

Except when it does (funny how credit card companies refused to process donations to Wikileaks right after the release of the Afghan War Diary.

[snip]

All of your points are mooted by one simple fact: private parties are not obligated to give every person on the planet a soap box on which to stand. And if they were, we would be talking about a tyranny with much larger implications than censorship.

Comment Re:For an alternative (Score 2) 581 581

There's a really funny flaw in your argument. Who is preventing people from creating their own websites? Why don't you ask the SJW's who keep DDoSing Voat. (That's a felony for those of you playing the home game!) I think we're at, or passed 5 separate DDoS attacks so far.

ScentCone is pointing out that Reddit banning certain subreddits is not actually censorship. Unless Reddit is the one DDoSing voat, your point is utterly moot. Even if Reddit were DDoSing voat (which I very much doubt) that still does not amount to censorship, since the individuals who would otherwise post on voat are still able to speak elsewhere, or to put up their own website. So your point is doubly moot.

TL;DR: Private parties are generally not obligated to give individuals a soap box on which to stand. That does not mean the private parties are preventing free speech, it just means the private parties don't have to foot the bill.

Comment Re:You have got to be kidding me (Score 1) 727 727

Congratulations slashdot, you just jumped the shark for me. A front page story about a scam artist with a victim complex and a direct link to a Patreon account so people can give her more money. Time to go find another tech news site.

Out of all the stupid shit that gets posted on Slashdot, you're going to get your knickers in a twister over this? Really? Honestly, that says more about your intellectual dishonesty than you can possibly imagine. Regardless of your (or anyone's) opinion of Ms. Wu, a single story soliciting questions (you know, what they used to call a "dialog") is hardly the worst thing that Slashdot has ever done. If this is the line in the sand for you, then you should probably go back to the sandbox.

Comment Re:The Majority Still Has Follow the Constitution (Score 0) 1083 1083

If they come from God, well, the religions practiced by virtually all people worldwide have consistently said throughout their history that such a marriage is not a marriage.

If they do not come from God, then they are simply a social construct, freely defined by humans. And the humans in many states said that such a marriage is not a marriage.

The rights don't come from god, since he plainly does not exist. Anyone who says otherwise is a dirty liar.

That said, I see where you're going with this. Or at least, I see where you're attempting to steer it. But it's a false dichotomy, and I'm a bit disappointed that you would attempt such a shallow parlor trick.

We live in a country that has constructed a system (a social construct, if you insist) that says that all people shall be treated equally under the law. Today's decision holds the nation -- the WHOLE nation -- to that principle, regardless of what a minority of conservatives believe or want. Even in those states where a majority of people do not agree with same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court decided today that doing so does not square with the larger principle of everyone being equal under the law. But then, you knew that. You've known that all along, through all your repeated posts about god and religion and other assorted bullshit. Your false dichotomy is a weak attempt at putting a will-of-the-people spin on what is, at its core, a matter of equal protection under the law.

And guess what? The people don't get to vote on that part. They can repeal the 14th amendment if they like (good luck with that) but they can't simply decide to ignore the equal protection clause. The Supremes said so.

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Working...