Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment Re:Security expert? (Score 2) 218

No, you actually do have an obligation to not be naive and pretend crime can't happen.

That's not quite the same as saying dressing a certain way makes sexual assault not a crime; in fact, it states quite the opposite! Read the statement again, with your head located outside your rectum. When a rapist rapes, it is the rapists fault, as the rapist should not rape; when a rapist rapes YOU, however, you must ask yourself why that rapist (who would have raped anyway and is still full at fault for the actual rape) chose you and not someone else.

Is it okay for a rapist to rape you if you dress a certain way? Oh hell no, and nobody said it was. But, just knowing that the rapist is there and that the rapist will rape, regardless of you, you have a responsibility to acknowledge that fact and make yourself less of a target. Will that prevent the rape? No, because, and I'll repeat this again so you can't get confused and think I'm victim blaming, the rape is the rapist's fault. What it will prevent is your rape.

Now, let's apply that logic to a less sensitive subject so you can see how things work in the real world. If you, knowing that people steal shit from cars, leave a laptop sitting on the passenger seat of your unlocked car over night and it gets stolen, it is the thief's fault a laptop was stolen, but it is your fault it was your laptop that was stolen.

How does this work? It's quite simple, really.

The thief is going to steal a laptop, that is a decision the thief made and the thief is completely responsible for that decision. Neither you, nor me, nor the police, nor the thief's parents, nor anyone else holds any responsibility for that decision. However, you know that there exist people who make such decisions and it is up to you to protect yourself from them. If you do not, that is a decision you made and you are completely responsible for that decision. Neither the thief, nor me, nor the police, nor your parents, nor anyone else holds any responsibility for that decision.

If you didn't leave the laptop in plain view, would a laptop still have been stolen? Yes, because the thief decided they were going to steal a laptop. Wold it have been yours? No, because you decided not to allow it to happen.

As a victim of both theft and rape (among other various crimes) in my younger, more naive, years, I quickly developed an understanding of this concept. Perhaps not quickly enough, but I did develop it, nonetheless, where you (and many others) still seem to have not figured it out.

Is it my fault my rape occurred? No, but it is my fault I was chosen over someone else. Is it my fault an MP3 player was stolen from me? No, but it is my fault I left it unattended so that it may be stolen. Is it my fault I was robbed at gunpoint twice? No but, in both cases, it is my fault I was unarmed and alone in a high-crime area late at night.

Should I have been able to trust my rapist not to rape me? Should I have been able to leave my MP3 player (back when those were a new thing, mind you) at my desk for 5 minutes? Should I have been able to safely walk around, alone and unarmed, at night? In an ideal world, yes.

We, however, do not live in an ideal world, and you're not doing yourself, or anyone else, any favors by ignoring that fact while you insist that we should.

One thing we agree on, though, is that we should live in an ideal world. Our main point of contention is how to reconcile the fact that we do not. My belief is that we should not let ourselves be attractive victims to the crimes we know will be committed anyway. You seem to believe the exact opposite, for which I suppose I should thank you, as you make it that much easier to do what I believe is right when you set the bar so low for criminals.

You can have the crime and victimhoood, I've been done with it for over a decade.

Comment Re:AI? (Score 2) 105

Should it fold if the opponents bet outweighs the probability?
If the AI uses probabilities, it itself becomes predictable and therefore trivial to beat.
The game is setup to make you lose if you only play good hands, so there is no playing safe in poker.
Probabilities in poker are nearly meaningless if you play against even half-decent amateurs.

Comment Re: Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score 1) 377

Actually, they regularly run into things like parked cars and windowless buildings. Did you have data to back up your claim, or were you just lying and hoping nobody would contradict you? The reason they hit the windows in houses, not the house, is that they hit the house, and you don't notice, but when they hit the window, you notice.

Comment Re:Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score 4, Insightful) 377

This is about the Bakken oil fields that run through Wyoming.

The US has a fossil fuel glut and renewable energy is not going to help that.

I helped litigate Big Tobacco and fossil fuel is the back story here.

They stab it with their steely knives
But they just can't kill the beast

Submission + - Apple Sues Qualcomm For Roughly $1 Billion Over Royalties (cnbc.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Apple is suing Qualcomm for roughly $1 billion, saying Qualcomm has been "charging royalties for technologies they have nothing to do with." The suit follows the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's lawsuit against Qualcomm earlier this week over unfair patent licensing practices. Apple says that Qualcomm has taken "radical steps," including "withholding nearly $1 billion in payments from Apple as retaliation for responding truthfully to law enforcement agencies investigating them." Apple added, "Despite being just one of over a dozen companies who contributed to basic cellular standards, Qualcomm insists on charging Apple at least five times more in payments than all the other cellular patent licensors we have agreements with combined." Apple also alleges that once it began cooperating with Korean authorities' antitrust investigation of Qualcomm, the company withheld $1 billion in retaliation. Korean regulators fined Qualcomm $854 million for unfair trade practices in December.

Slashdot Top Deals

A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems. -- P. Erdos

Working...