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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Speaking is a Democrat (Score 1) 276

Citizens United was evil and intentional. The bulk of Democrats are at best corporate cucks, and some of them are solidly fascist. There's nothing left about them.
This old chestnut. Without eviscerating the first amendment, precisely how does one rule on Citizen's United? B/c if you want to go back to the good ol' days we are at the mercy of the 6 mega corps who own all the newspapers and television stations. Do you want them deciding what political speech is acceptable in the last 30 days before an election? Additionally, authoritarians of any stripe are bad, why do you people seem to long for left wing leaning ones? Are you that eager for gulags and breadlines or are you genuinely ignorant of most of 20th century history? The Soviet experiment had just as bad an outcome as the Italian one.

Comment Re:Has the 1st amendment outlived its usefulness? (Score 1) 276

The "2nd Amendment Solution" brigade is too cheap to actually use their guns and too chickenshit to get up and do anything even if they were given free gear. They'd rather sit around and fantasize that John Wayne will rise from the dead to lead Rambo and the A-Team on a mission to overthrow the "corrupt government" to install their Dear Leader and create their utopia for them. They're cordially invited to prove me wrong.
insert Navy Seal meme post here. Considering how utterly traumatized Washington DC was after Jan 6th(when virtually no one was armed), I doubt it would take that much. But be careful what you wish for anonymous tough guy on the internet, you probably won't enjoy it when you get it.

Comment Re:Betteridge's law of headlines (Score 1) 276

It is a major factor behind the crap on social media. If people had to post under their real names, the quality of discourse would improve. While I'm at it, they should also prohibit free accounts for social media sites with more than 500K users. Force 'em to charge $3/month or something; in return, prohibit them from selling user data or advertising to users. This would also eliminate bots because the economics would no longer make sense. None of this will happen, of course, because the social media incumbents are not unhappy with how things are.
Good lord, is Nikki Haley moderating /. now? To all the silly geese living in America who hate anonymous online speech, please acquaint yourself with the history of the American Revolution and the anonymous pamphleteers' contributions therein.

Submission + - DHS Got Involved In Online Censorship By Labeling Disinformation a Cyber Attack (realclearpolitics.com)

An anonymous reader writes: "This dirty trick of calling cyber censorship 'cyber security' is how DHS got involved in this," he said. "DHS teamed up with the FBI in the runup to the 2020 election and created a series of private sector and academic cutouts to serve as attack dogs for social media content DHS wanted taken down."

"The FBI and DHS are taking advantage of this lull period awaiting a Supreme Court decision to resume this same dirty work they were doing in the 2020 election."

Comment Re:Here we go again. (Score 1) 276

> ItÃ(TM)s very simple. If you hold tech companies legally responsible for the content their users produce, they will *shut down* the ability

Why do you think Big Tech would /evaluate/ that legal liability for user content would be their recommendation?

I mean, that would force decentralized social media eventually but I can't see Big Tech's evaluation being that a loss of their business
would be the best course.

```
It would require Big Tech companies to work with Congress for 18 months to "evaluate and enact a new legal framework that will allow for free speech and innovation while also encouraging these companies to be good stewards of their platforms"
```

Submission + - Flood of Fake Science Forces Multiple Journal Closures: Wiley to shutter 19 more (wsj.com)

schwit1 writes: Fake studies have flooded the publishers of top scientific journals, leading to thousands of retractions and millions of dollars in lost revenue. The biggest hit has come to Wiley, a 217-year-old publisher based in Hoboken, N.J., which Tuesday will announce that it is closing 19 journals, some of which were infected by large-scale research fraud.

In the past two years, Wiley has retracted more than 11,300 papers that appeared compromised, according to a spokesperson, and closed four journals. It isn’t alone: At least two other publishers have retracted hundreds of suspect papers each. Several others have pulled smaller clusters of bad papers.

Although this large-scale fraud represents a small percentage of submissions to journals, it threatens the legitimacy of the nearly $30 billion academic publishing industry and the credibility of science as a whole.

The discovery of nearly 900 fraudulent papers in 2022 at IOP Publishing, a physical sciences publisher, was a turning point for the nonprofit. “That really crystallized for us, everybody internally, everybody involved with the business,” said Kim Eggleton, head of peer review and research integrity at the publisher. “This is a real threat.” . . . World-over, scientists are under pressure to publish in peer-reviewed journals—sometimes to win grants, other times as conditions for promotions. Researchers say this motivates people to cheat the system. Many journals charge a fee to authors to publish in them.

Comment Re:Probably less than that, actually. (Score 1) 52

And what are the odds that a child of "someone important" will be out on the street to be hit and killed?

Remember, while the injuries were made more severe, the person in this survived.

Death rate is remarkably low for these. Regular human drivers kill more on average. Remember, a human was the primary cause of this accident as well.

Comment Probably less than that, actually. (Score 1) 52

It depends a LOT on your story, but there's every possibility that you'd get by with an excuse of "I didn't know she was stuck under my car, and I was trying to move to safety". It's not like YOU know how somebody under your car would change the handling, right?

In this case, though, it looks like the corporation didn't cooperate well enough, which caused issues.

I think that right now, "Shit happened, we didn't expect this, we're adjusting the programming to take this into account." should work for most things.
1. This is what happened. Include a "why" in the programming if you can
2. Own the responsibility. Pay damages if necessary.
3. Specify that you're working on an engineering fix. If necessary, point out that its' a "hard problem" and may take some time. Actually work on said fix.

Comment Re:Hit and run (Score 1) 52

The legal firm is a fucking paid shill and fixer. Their rationalization about the buffering of the video doesn't make any sense. And even if you could believe their excuse for the press conference, it doesn't explain why Cruise lied to the authorities also.

Do you know what "lambast" and "scathing" means? They might be a paid fixer, as in "fix the problem", but they don't seem to be much of a shill, given that their report led to many resignations and such for the company. Their reporting was very negative - even if they couldn't necessarily say some things were actually deliberate or not.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff." -- Dave Enyeart

Working...