Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Pardon Manning and Snowden (Score 2) 380

Slightly off-topic, but you have an interesting point. People need to stop getting so butt hurt if they don't have any direct reason to be. The ultra-sensitive person you are referring to used to be what was meant by "SJW." People overreacting to a perceived injustice where none existed. For instance my brother gets offended when people use the word "waitress." That's just stupid; nobody cares. (Of course, he could have been feigning offense just to elicit laughs... not sure.)

In fact, sometimes the overreaction is more offensive than the actual original event. For instance, when Trump used the perfectly acceptable phrase "blood coming out of her eyes" to mean "very angry and agressive" (which I think comes from horned toads), he became unsure of his usage and changed it to "wherever." It was pretty clear he was just not sure what the correct idiom was, and didn't want to sound stupid for getting it wrong. Unfortunately, SJW's assumed he was talking about menstruation. Nobody (at least not any guy) was thinking that, until the press started saying it. I'll bet Trump was just as surprised as anybody at the interpretation they put on his words. While Trump said some pretty horrible things over the course of the campaign, this was clearly an overblown response by people trying to make him look bad. (before you accuse me of any sort of ideology, please go through my post history)

The problem is that right-wing nut jobs like my buddy now use "SJW" to refer to anybody who disagrees with him on a social issue, or sometimes as a mythical straw man. That has made people like me become averse to the pejorative sense of the abbreviation. In fact, since it has taken on the broader meaning of "not an asshole," I gladly embrace the label. I've even posted on Slashdot that people should strive to become warriors for social justice. It's sort of like the opposite of what happened to the word "hacker." It used to have a good connotation, and now it has a bad one.

Now there is a caveat. It's something that caught me rather by surprised. Apparently there is a sizeable portion of the population who "just roll with it" even though they are deeply offended. I'm not sure what to do about that. I'm about to go way off the rails, so bear with me. I heard a story about a lady who did studies on people who cat call. One of the reasons they continue doing it is because nobody -- literally nobody -- has ever told them they were offended by it. He considered himself to be paying them a compliment. Whereas the women interviewed in the study were afraid to confront the people catcalling because the majority of them thought that would lead to physical or sexual assault. How fucked up is that. You have two people, both of them making terribly wrong assumptions about the state of mind of the other person. Honestly, I don't know which one I find more offensive: that guys think cat-calling is a legit compliment, or that a majority of women think random Joe-on-the-street wants to rape them. Like I said, I'm off the rails... sorry.

I guess the upshot is that maybe SJW's feel like they see an injustice somebody else is unwilling to talk about. Maybe the best answer is to have an open conversation with people that share different world views. See if your $MINORITY$ friend really has a problem with $PERCEIVED_INJUSTICE$, then act accordingly.

Comment Re:Why "I" shouldn't trust Geek Squad? (Score 1) 389

You seem to misunderstand what "reasonable doubt" means. This case barely meets probably cause, if the article can be taken at face value. It wouldn't even meet a preponderance of the evidence standard for a civil case. In all criminal cases, reasonable doubt is the null hypothesis. The defendant doesn't have to prove it. It is up to the prosecution to prove *beyond* reasonable doubt that a crime was committed by the defendant. So what several jurisdictions have done instead, is passed laws where it is trivial to prove they have been broken. Define the law in such a way that guilt is always assured, you just have to find the right law to charge somebody under. I'm probably breaking seventeen laws just by posting this.

Comment Re:Why "I" shouldn't trust Geek Squad? (Score 1) 389

You know it's possible for a website to serve any image to you computer, right? Some older web browsers would save those files as images in a folder whether you wanted it to or not. One of my coworkers had an unfortunate incident image searching a pillow block bearing, and when he later went to back up his computer to the company server, he inadvertently copied a whole host of unsavory (but not illegal) thumbnails. None of this was done by malware. It was 100% human interaction. Had one of the images been illegal, it would have been trivial for a prosecutor to show that he had "ownership" of the material, since he had to log into a password protected computer to move the files.

The bigger problem is that people have to prove their innocence these days. In Houston a guy was arrested on meth charges for having a sock full of kitty litter in his car. This poor bastard spent time in jail while the whole mess was sorted out. When prospective employers google his name, his arrest on drug charges shows up as the first dozen hits. (analogy would be if it were his auto repair shop that called the cops)

This whole country has become so ass-backwards when it comes to people's understanding of burden of proof. It's impossible to prove a negative. Hell, I can't even prove there's no bits on this computer that couldn't be misconstrued as CP. Let's see: one of my best friends from high school is on the sex offender list, I went to church with a guy that just got convicted of producing CP, a family member has been fired from a child care facility, and I am reading this article on how to evade getting caught by the FBI. Yup, I'm definitely a suspect. Better lock me up for life!

Comment Re:Python: better than JS, except for JSON (Score 1) 187

You mistake eval() for JSON.parse()

Both JS and python can eval(). Yeah, it's really stupid to eval() code. And you can do it in JS and it will usually give you an object (the times it doesn't are very interesting indeed!) But JSON.parse() is not eval. JSON.parse decodes a string into an object, which is data only.

Similarly json.loads() takes a string and converts it to a dict.

What I was getting at is really a minor quibble but it comes up a lot. var o = { this:1 that: 2} is much more friendly to write than o = {"this": 1, "that":2} There are a limited number of what they key can be: string, int float. That is it. So if they key is non-numeric, then it can only be a string. That's the only point I was making. Perhaps it would be interesting to have key="this" o={ key: 1} which then makes {"this":1}, but I'd argue against it

Comment Before the apologists... (Score 1) 187

Before the apologists say you can use Babel, admittedly, you can, but, using such a tool is an admission of defeat. To compile something that is not true JS to something that is JS I would argue is not the original language. It's like using macros in assembly. It may seem pedantic, but pragmatically, Python runs _everywhere_ that C runs*. (Meaning your platform has a C compiler). Comparatively, using JSLint as an example, in order for JSLint to support a particular feature, it must be in two runtimes and at least stage 3 in proposal.

* I'm not talking about browsers, because that's where JS was designed to work. I'm talking about outside the browser, where people are taking JS. And Mozilla did have an experiment about running Python in the browser. And if you want to split hairs:

Comment Re: Just sayin' (Score 0) 48

No, they use FUD, brand name recognition, and bundling, and charge obnoxiously inflated rates. Quite a few less-savvy customers end up badly gouged. My landlord is one of them. He's stuck with a ridiculously overpriced DSL package from Bell because of Fibe TV—and his location, deep in the heart of metropolitan Toronto, is mysteriously not eligible for the actual fibre-optic-to-the-pole service promised in marketing material. If you actually read the entire article, you'll see mention of lobbyist groups trying to get the CRTC to change their practices of trusting incumbents to actually keep their prices competitive due to competition.

Comment Re:Just sayin' (Score 5, Informative) 48

If you RTFA, you'll discover the little nugget of joy that the CRTC declined to regulate prices—again. So all those rural areas are going from terrible service to unaffordable service. I don't think the big telcos are that upset about this particular demand; they get money to overhaul their infrastructure (where needed) and can double-dip by charging their customers as much as they want afterward. It seems that this probably won't be changing any time soon.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." -- The Wizard Of Oz