Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:lemme guess (Score 1) 530

I thought you didn't get karma points just for being funny? That's why you see some hilarious posts modded as "informative" or something instead.

Which grants you Karma for being funny, thereby proving the GP correct.

Comment Re:Does Boston really smell that bad? (Score 1) 179

The federal regs state that "a combustible gas in a distribution line must contain a natural odorant or be odorized”, which means that gathering lines from wells and transmission lines are exempt from odorization. Many companies have classified their farm taps as transportation or gathering systems to avoid the requirement to add odorant. However, PHMSA has made clear recently that they consider farm taps to be distribution systems except in a few limited circumstances. Unfortunately, there aren't many options for economically adding mercaptan to an individual tap. Responsibility for this isn't always clear either because some jurisdictions leave the meter with the pipeline owner while others make the incumbent local distribution company provide the meter and support the customer.

Comment Re:Article is Misleading (Score 2) 397

The Witcher 2 was originally released in May of 2011, not this past year when GOG finally started selling the game.

The game was available on GOG from release day. Why do you claim otherwise?

So, of course the most pirated version of the game would be one of the DRM variants, since the DRM version was available for a longer period and typically more in demand closer to the original release date.

Since the DRM-free version was available from the beginning, your argument is invalid.

But no mention of either date (original release of the game) or GOG's release are mentioned in the article

They are the same - May 17, 2011.

Anyway, sorry for interrupting the anti-DRM circle jerk with facts and logic.

Don't you have a bridge to go hide under?

Comment Re:It's not surprising (Score 1) 174

I stopped using Newegg altogether after last year's Black Friday purchase. My laptop arrived DOA (and later reviews indicated that this was an issue with most of the units). The initial RMA request process was simple but it quickly went downhill. They received my laptop then days later claimed they didn't and told me I'd need to file a claim with the shipper. During the next two months I spoke to various levels of customer service, traded emails with them, and used their online chat option. Across the board, they were unhelpful and often dishonest about the process and my options. They refused to cooperate with the shipper in processing my claim but lied and told me that the shipper wasn't contacting them. They agreed to send me pictures of the damaged box but wouldn't follow through. I eventually had to file a claim with my credit card company to get my money refunded. It was, without exaggeration, one of the most unpleasant experiences ever dealing with a retailer of any sort.

Comment Re:How about not wasting gas into the air? (Score 2) 179

In my state, the gas distribution companies are allowed a set percentage of lost and unaccounted for gas (gas the company buys but doesn't sell to customer and no longer has). As long as the company stays within that acceptable range, they have little reason to care about further reductions since that offset is built into their rate. However, being above that rate means they blowing money out holes in the pipes.

Comment Re:Does Boston really smell that bad? (Score 2) 179

In rural areas, customers are often served by farm taps on well gathering lines or transmission lines. The gathering lines are usually odorized but transmission lines can be a real problem. Transmission companies are not required to add odorant to their lines. The local distribution company has nothing but a regulator and meter sitting on the transmission line. Many of these taps are simply out of compliance and have no smell.

Comment Re:Offensive (Score 1) 622

This only makes sense if the scoring thresholds are set per school, not per race. The kids that go to the same school and live in the same neighborhood receive about the same education, so you should aim at improving that by increasing their school's scoring goal by a set % each year.

Now you're using geography as a proxy, which I would wager is even worse at tracking the underlying issues. Sure, poorer areas (inner cities or extremely rural counties) generally will score lower across the board but many smaller towns and larger school districts cut across multiple socio-economic layers. The high school just down the road is considered one of the best in the state and serves most of the city's well-to-do neighborhoods, but it also includes some pretty poor areas. Are we happy that the school scores above average even if distinct groups within that population consistently do poorly?

but pre-setting goals simply based on race is the very definition of racism

I would agree if the state said "Since blacks aren't as smart as whites, we shouldn't require them to do as well on these tests." However, they are using empirical data to demonstrate that, when grouped by their chosen racial divides, Asians score quite well compared to the rest and that whites are slightly above the remaining categories. Their goal is to get everyone to the same level but they suggest it is unreasonable to expect a group currently scoring at 48% to suddenly reach the 82% score of another group. This does not imply an inability for any group to score as high as any other group. But it does recognize that everyone isn't starting from the same place so some may take longer to get there.

Comment Re:Offensive (Score 1) 622

Don't try and excuse it. Admit it, and find a better mechanism.

My post was really too long for you to read? Let me quote the last paragraph for you again:

The problem I have is that race is being used as a proxy for what is most likely a set of complex socio-economic factors. Bringing in more wealthy Hispanics will most assuredly raise that population's test scores without the state doing anything differently. But cultural and social indicators are more difficult to track than a few big racial categories, so they've picked an easy but weak measurement tool.

Comment Re:I have said it before but MMO's need to kill pl (Score 1) 204

The MUD that I played for years in college had a system where you could "re-mort" and level again. You had to be at max level and complete a series of fairly difficult fights and challenges. If you succeeded, your character returned to level 1. You essentially rerolled at that point and started from scratch, except with a new ability available only to those who remorted. You could do this multiple times, with a new unique spell or ability each time.

This MUD also had death traps that would claim all of your gear and anything in your bags, as well as perm death if your experience points dipped into the negatives. As interesting as some may find these features, they would not be popular in WoW, especially at this point. As others have pointed out, a good portion of WoW's subscription base is driven by lock-in these days. Just like my buddy feels stuck with his iPhone because all his stuff is in iTunes, it is hard to walk away from a dozen well-geared characters and several years of time invested to start over elsewhere. If those characters aged and died, it would ease the movement to other games, which of course Blizzard doesn't want.

Comment Re:Offensive (Score 5, Informative) 622

No, and if you bothered to read past the intentionally flamebait summary, you would see that isn't what they're doing.

The NCLB act requires states to meet benchmarks on student standardized testing and to demonstrate progress in areas where they are deficient. Virginia's proposal actually makes sense, for the most part. They have identified that their scores can be segregated into cohorts that are easy to track. Rather than expect the entire population to meet overall improvement levels each year, they want to raise up each group at rate realistic for them. If a category of students are consistently scoring at 50%, a second group at 75%, and a third group at 85%, they are saying it makes more sense to expect each group to demonstrate progress instead of just asking the entire population to hit, for example, 80%.

This change has no impact on the expectations of individual students. The new pass rates are for how they track their progress as a state. Virginia wants to say that if they can show that group 1 improved from a 50% to 62% in three years, they have succeeded with them even if the state didn't hit a global target.

The problem I have is that race is being used as a proxy for what is most likely a set of complex socio-economic factors. Bringing in more wealthy Hispanics will most assuredly raise that population's test scores without the state doing anything differently. But cultural and social indicators are more difficult to track than a few big racial categories, so they've picked an easy but weak measurement tool.

Comment Re:News? (Score 1) 307

Can I refer you back to my earlier comment?

You're likely correct. I wasn't commenting about this specific case but the OP's twisted logic.

I am not questioning that any right may have reasonable limitations. I'm not even commenting on the appropriateness of this specific case.

Comment Re:News? (Score 1) 307

At this point I'm leaning away from you trolling, which leaves the other option. Since it seems obvious that logic will not work with you, I'll make it simple.

If a court, cop, or any other representative of the government can, without limit, compel the identity of a speaker who wishes to be anonymous and, up to this point, is completely anonymous to the government, then there is no right to anonymous speech. Your inability to grasp this doesn't change the fact.
   

Comment Re:News? (Score 1) 307

So your argument is that as long as there remain theoretical means to protect your anonymity via technology, nothing the government does should be construed as stepping upon the right to anonymous speech?

Within reason.

Are you saying it is a problem if the ISP was required by law to keep the data and then the government asked for it, but would not be a problem if the ISP kept it for their own reasons and the government asked for it?

Yes, that is what I'm saying. The government has a legitimate interest to uncover the author, and is using their judicial power to do so.

Then you truly do not believe in the right to anonymous speech. If there are no limits on the government's desire to unmask anonymous speakers, the right to anonymous speech does not exist. Period.

Your examples about investigating a crime speak to limits on the right of anonymous speech, whether the right should be absolute or are their reasonable limits. That, however, is outside our discussion of whether or not the right exists at all.

Comment Re:News? (Score 1) 307

I don't agree. This poster wasn't required to identify themselves, and that means a lot. They could have used a proxy, or used an open Wi-Fi spot.

So your argument is that as long as there remain theoretical means to protect your anonymity via technology, nothing the government does should be construed as stepping upon the right to anonymous speech? If I use Tor but the local node was ran by the NSA and they reveal my identity, there is no problem because I should have selected an anonymous proxy in Bulgaria? I suppose the freedom of religion isn't abridged if the government shuts down every church in the nation, since worshippers could meet in secret in someone's basement?

If ISPs and websites were actually required to log the information you say, then that would be an issue. But that's not the case now. Hopefully it remains that way.

I don't follow your logic here. Are you saying it is a problem if the ISP was required by law to keep the data and then the government asked for it, but would not be a problem if the ISP kept it for their own reasons and the government asked for it?

Slashdot Top Deals

A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.

Working...