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


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Fathom Events (Score 2) 331

http://www.fathomevents.com/ I subscribe to their newsletter, and I regularly see movies, tv shows, and specials in the theater that I wouldn't ordinarily be able to see with the "full theater experience". Recently it was Batman The Killing Joke, Doctor Who episodes, Shakespeare birthday celebration, etc. I paid about $12.25 per ticket (for three people) and bought about $30 worth of theater concessions. For Killing Joke we had a group of ten people and we all had a great time, and the entire event was sold out with such demand that additional nights and showtimes were added. so yes, for certain things, I will leave my widescreen monitor and go for the theater experience.

Comment When will Medium go to hell? (Score 1) 39

So far I've been fairly pleased with reading things on Medium, although some of the weird sliding underlay pics I can do without. So when will the nice experience give way to a horrible one? When they force ads on those who run ad blockers? When they decide they aren't making enough money from the site as is? Micro transactions? So far it's been almost too good to be true.... which makes me deeply suspicious.

Comment Caring, more or less (Score 1) 765

I know you are correct, but I have decided to hear it as "I could care less (but that wouldn't be worth the effort)".

Alternately: "It might surprise you to know, seeing how little I care, that I could care less than I appear to, but it would take quantum observation to discriminate between how much I care and the theoretical zero point."

So it's wrong but it's not wrong-wrong.

This is hand-in-hand with "It's not 'apathy' per se, I just don't think I care."

In english the ironic is normative. 8-)

Comment Real Name Policy - Off Topic (Score 1) 293

Anyone know how to get around the stupid "real name policy"? I go by a different name due to my association with the fringe art community, and they are trying to force me to upload ID that shows my real name, which I've heard then locks you into using that name. I don't need potential employers knowing that I shoot nude pics for fun.

Comment FACEBOOKISTAN (Score 2) 293

Just watched this last night, while I've heard of the issues with content moderators previously, this is the first time I've seen it all laid out including the censorship of legal political parties. Also to be found in the usual places if you'd like a download.

Facebookistan Site
Watch on YouTube Facebookistan english version

Comment Self esteem issue (Score 5, Insightful) 499

Women leave interviewing.io roughly 7 times as often as men after they do badly in an interview. And the numbers for two bad interviews aren't much better.

Once you factor out interview data from both men and women who quit after one or two bad interviews, the disparity goes away entirely. So while the attrition numbers aren't great, I'm massively encouraged by the fact that at least in these findings, it's not about systemic bias against women or women being bad at computers or whatever. Rather, it's about women being bad at dusting themselves off after failing, which, despite everything, is probably a lot easier to fix.

Also the title here is particularly bad, but I guess it's part of the Science News Cycle

Comment Do Zip/Rar/Archive Bombs still exist? (Score 1) 113

This got me thinking of the maliciously constructed ZIP/RAR files that would expand endlessly from a very small zip into files that were larger than any hard drive could handle, as well as make directory/file structures so deep you couldn't delete them in windows. Sure these days they are hiding malicious payloads in there as the above bugs mention, but I could see one of these being the payload for annoyance purposes if they still exist.

Comment Sample Code is often unimpressive (Score 1) 286

They didn't declare the same variable twice. They declared two independent variables with the same purpose to use the same name. If the second one said "d" instead of "c" it wouldn't break the pattern but it _would_ confuse the point that the two ifs create two scopes with no bleeding through.

Your comment seems to miss that point.

The real goal is to create an initializer that is valid for both the "then" and the "else" part but that DOES NOT introduce variables beyond the scope of the liftime of the if. That's why the full comparison text include the outer braces {thing c=stuff(); if (some_status(c)) okay(c); else no_bueno(c); } implies printf("%p",c) error because C is out of scope.

Using the same variable name twice was exemplary of the common closure of scope in the suggestion.

Alos note that the particular example was to bring it into line with the okay=complex_function(); if (!okay) return error; okay=next_complex_function(); if (!okay) return error;

Programmers _suck_ at stringing conditionals and making sure that the whole stop and exit at first error paradigm is met. The above monad can already be done as a number of graceful or degenerate cases.

if all your success states are boolean true, and failure is boolean false then a simple "return co1() && co2() && co3();" series continues until one fails or all succeed. But larger cascades from less boolean series can get "interestingly decorative" depending on how the programmer likes to arrange this sort of thing.

Of course the "Real Answer" is exceptions, but only if you don't then screw that up...

So the solution is a "not bad" attempt to deal with the horror that is "in-band error reporting", a horror that most languages make us blind to due to ubiquity alone.

Comment Re:Study commissioned by the BSA? (Score 1) 249

I'm shocked anyone has forgotten, or gives credence to anything they put out.

Have You Received An Audit Letter From BSA - Business Software Alliance?

Oddly enough people seem suspicious of the BSA and their audits, wonder why? ;)

Comment Not the same... from TFA (Score 3, Informative) 173

By citing a specific case one might conclude that AMC’s attorney is confident that the cases are similar, but reading the details casts more than just a little doubt on his claims.

The historical case in question involved the publication of a book by Publications International which covered in detail the first eight episodes of the 1990/91 TV series Twin Peaks. The big question was whether this use of copyright works was protected under fair use but in the end the court decided the publisher had gone too far.

The court found that the defendant’s “detailed recounting of the show’s plotlines went far beyond merely identifying their basic outline for the transformative purposes of comment or criticism” adding:

Because the plot synopses were so detailed, and in fact lifted many sections verbatim from the original scripts, the court found that defendant copied a substantial amount of plaintiff’s original works.

This hardly seems to mirror the situation playing out alongside a potential spoiler of an unaired episode of The Walking Dead. Presumably that spoiler can be achieved by saying a single name too, which by no stretch of the imagination amounts to a substantial part of any show.

I'm ambivalent about spoilers myself, just knowing who it is doesn't equal seeing it play out with the acting, effects, etc. Sometimes I'm glad not to know, sometimes I wish I didn't know a spoiler, sometimes I love knowing.

Comment You don't know what a "chargeback" is... (in U.S.) (Score 1) 194

A dispute is a request to get a charge "investigated". A "chargeback" is an instruction to the bank/credit company take the money back and make it my problem.

Most people don't know that (in the United States) these are completely different things.

If I dispute a charge then the credit card company may contact the vendor and ask them what happened and generally do a resolution where I may, or may not, get a refund. A dispute takes days, weeks, or even months to run its course.

A chargeback tells the credit card company to suck the money back out of the payee's account right now and debit it back to me unconditionally. There is no investigation. There is no delay. Once a chargeback has been issued the credit card issuer is no longer involved in the transaction. They payee may sue the payor or otherwise deal with the financial dispute by legal means. A chargeback is the "nuclear option" for dealing with a credit card transaction that's gone bad.

But understand that a chargeback isn't magic. If you buy something through an intermediary, the credit card bank is taking money from that next step in the chain, from that intermediary. That intermediary may then choose sue you or never do business with you again. So issuing a charge-back to ebay might get you a lifetime ban from ebay or a lawsuit from ebay and leave ebay holding the bag, unable to get the money back from the seller.

I've disputed several charges in my lifetime, but I've only ever once issued a chargeback. A local scaffolding company didn't properly log in the return of the scaffolding I'd rented. So they kept on billing me monthly rent for it. I tried to work it out with them, but they just kept saying they'd be charging me forever unless I showed up with the scaffolding. The individual pieces aren't serialized so it was impossible to coerce an audit to support my claim. I'm a home owner, not a business, so it's not like I could misplace that much stuff.

So I called the credit card company and issued a chargeback. The guy on the phone was all "what charges do you wish to dispute?" and I said "_NO_, I am issuing a chargeback for (amount) and blocking all further charges from (company)." I had to go several rounds and get a manager involved because the phone monkey didn't know what I was talking about. Finally I made it happen. Then I contacted the scaffolding company that I'd charged back everything they'd charged me since the date of the equipment return. With the money back in my hand and the door closed they became way more responsive and we agreed to go our separate ways.

They cold have sued me or whatever, but they would have lost since all of their records were messed up and their procedures were lax at best. So they decided (amount) and whatever equipment they thought I still had wasn't worth going to court.

A full chargeback is the last milestone before a resolution or a law suit, and if you issue (or receive as a business owner) more than a couple a decade you are likely to be dropped by the card company. It would _suck_ for a business to be banned by, say, all of Visa Corp. It wouldn't be fun for a consumer either.

But the full "chargeback" is a guaranteed protection to credit card holders as enshrined by law. The "dispute" is a contract term in your card and/or vendor agreement and subject to civil terms and other sections of law.

Chargebacks exist because the buyer and the seller are the actual involved parties, so either party can say to the payment processors "get out of this dispute completely" but to do that, to get out of the middle, the money must be put back into the hands of the original people.

It's twisty, and you shouldn't ever take legal or financial advice from the internet, but "disputing a charge" and "issuing a chargeback" are _totally_ different things.

Slashdot Top Deals

Whenever people agree with me, I always think I must be wrong. - Oscar Wilde