Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Okay, that's enough. (Score 1) 670

That's because fundamentally we only have 1 group in power:
People Who Want You To Do What They Say.
We have no liberty, only lip-service to an ethereal concept we label "liberty". It's still possible for a majority of voters to vote to take away or prevent the granting of rights to people who do not conform to the majority's standard. I'm straight, but the fact that people can vote to prevent gays from marrying means it's NOT a free country. We are instead oppressed by our leaders AND our peers instead of just our leaders.

Comment Re:It's so very odd..... (Score 1) 1376

Very true. Every person, religious or not, feels that certain things are untrue. Most Christians, Jews, and Muslims would agree that Ganesh is a fable. "Elephant-headed god, indeed!" they'd say. Then you tell them that you don't believe in their god, and they think you're a bigot. I don't just "not believe", I actively disbelieve. There's a huge difference there, and many people need to be less mealy-mouthed and own up to their active disbelief and its difference from passive nonbelief. To not believe is to not put faith in an assertion. To disbelieve is to think the assertion is very likely to be incorrect. A "not proven" verdict is different from "not guilty".

Comment Re:Obligatory (Score 1) 1376

True that. I was raised Evangelical, it took a couple of slick-haired, slick talking ministers to convince me, at age 30, that it was all crap. I had gone through conflicts with my family regarding gay rights, the value of free choice and not theocratic rule, science vs. biblical literalism, but the ministers clinched it. Everyone who serves one of these fake-smile, lie about how good your life is megachurches should realize they've destroyed my faith and I can never have it back. You see, even by choice, you can't will yourself to believe in something your brain thinks is complete crap. Oh, believe me, faced with obliteration and the nothingness of actual death, I tried. It can't be done. I'm an Atheist, and even if I found a belief system I liked better, I couldn't just will myself to believe something just because I liked it better. Truth is ugly but at least it's real. YMMV and if you've seen evidence for a god, it's logical for you to believe in one. I just haven't, so it's logical for me not to.

Comment Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score 1) 895

Only this time it was the newb who came in and fucked with everyone else. They asked him to stop it. So, it's kind of analogous to the reverse of your example of the surfers. There's a bit of a difference between surfing a wave and grabbing a person's avatar and throwing it to a squad of high level NPCs. Neither is evil, but I don't think your analogy is analogous in the sense that you used it.

Comment Re:Who makes the "rules" of a community? (Score 1) 895

He's not wrong to play that way, he's wrong to think that the other players should tolerate it happily. He shouldn't be banned unless he pisses off a LOT of people (game companies are in the business of selling fun, and if he makes their product suck, they'll sacrifice him to the fun gods and permaban him.)

Comment Re:Being an asshole makes people angry, film at 11 (Score 1) 895

I played COH for about 2 years. It's a decent MMO. Regardless of whether these social customs and the expectation to follow them are reasonable, they are the "law of the land". He has his choice to play the game, they have their choice to play with him or not. If he was simply TPing them into monsters, fair deal. If he was exploiting the map and TPing them into a STUCK condition near monsters, well, that's just evil cheating.

Comment Re:public disclosure of private facts (Score 1) 301

Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. However, it WAS of public concern within the organization. It is necessary to communicate to employees the importance of following protocols put in place, and the consequences of failure to do so. It was not released publicly, but internally, right? If I were photographed picking my nose, and the photo were made public, would that be a disclosure of private facts if the photograph was taken at my birthday party? How about through my car window? In my front yard? We're not talking about a thing which is done in private- turning in an expense report is not an act which carries an expectation of privacy in the same manner that using a bathroom stall or going to your physician would have.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 1) 301

Well, the issue here then is privacy- do we have a right to privacy for such things? Not in current law that I am aware of. It is quite a different thing to say he was terminated for violation of policy than to say he stole money or double dipped. They stated their reason, not an allegation of his behavior. It is reasonable to assume that when a person says "I broke up with Helen because she was not faithful" means that the unfaithfulness is the opinion, not necessarily the fact. If the person had said "Helen was unfaithful to me. I broke up with her." , that's actually a very distinctly different statement. It's a subject-verb thing here. If they said they fired him for X, that's not a direct allegation. If they said he did X and was fired, that's an allegation.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 1) 301

I totally disagree. If the plaintiff is aware that the "libel" is in fact truthful, wouldn't any such suit be a S.L.A.P.P? If you know that the suit has no merit and your reason for filing the suit is to silence the person who is speaking the truth, it would seem to be a S.L.A.P.P no matter what was said. Malice? Can it really be malicious to tell the truth out of anger? Can we be sued for libel because we outed someone's secrets? Blackmail is illegal, but is telling the truth in order to hurt someone?
Democrats

Submission + - Clinton campaigners busted for astroturfing (computerworld.com)

Ian Lamont writes: "The liberal blog Blue Hampshire has banned six users after determining that the users failed to disclose their affiliations with Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign. The scheme came to light after Blue Hampshire noticed that the users all registered from an IP address used by the Clinton campaign in order to recommend the post Winning the Policy Debate — Clinton over Obama. Blue Hampshire has banned the accounts in question and has threatened to do the same to 'undisclosed paid staffers of any campaign' who are 'gaming the system.' Clinton's campaign office told the blog that the astroturfing was the product of 'overeager staffers and volunteers.'"

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX enhancements aren't.

Working...