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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re: Well yeah (Score 1) 358

Don't count on that.

Let's say robots end up planting, tending, and harvesting all our crops. Crop prices will not drop to some amazingly cheap level, because there will still be the inherent costs of seeds, fertilizer and irrigation, as well as the costs of transporting the crops to market.

Then add in the power and maintenance costs of the robots.

Then add in any overhead I missed.

Then add in the profit margin for the corporation who owns the farm and robots.

Comment Re:"Toxic" comments huh? (Score 1) 195

Except that, depending on the forum, you're already accepting limitations on your freedom of speech by agreeing to their Terms of Use.

I assure you, if I were to (for example) go on the official World of Warcraft forums and start spouting racist nonsense, I would be banned from the forums so fast it would make your head spin. (Now, I wouldn't do that because I'm not racist. It's an example.)

Now, it doesn't matter that I have freedom of speech. I had it. I used it. I used it in a manner that the organization hosting the forum found unacceptable, and they showed me the door.

The problem isn't freedom of speech (or the perceived lack thereof). The problem is people who post toxic stuff and then act like they have an absolute right to do so without any consequences.

Most of us, if not all of us, have seen someone pull this sort of behavior. They act like a jerk, and then when someone takes offense or asks them to stop, they pull a "well, it's only a joke". Now, I'm not saying every post on every forum has to be squeaky-clean and never ever offend anyone. It's just not going to happen.

But most forums ban specific behavior. And they do so for a reason.

Comment Re:"Toxic" comments huh? (Score 1) 195

If they're refusing access to the forum because the user is a protected class, that would be a potential issue.

Being an asshole isn't a protected class.

And I'm hard pressed to think of a forum that doesn't have some Terms of Use. And most of them spell out behavior that will get you banned.

But does a forum run by a game company, or a business, or a political group or whatever count as a public accommodation? Even if it was, even in a business of public accommodation, there is behavior that will get you shown the door, if not getting the cops called on you.

Freedom of speech is NOT freedom from consequences.

Comment Re:"Toxic" comments huh? (Score 4, Insightful) 195

First, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

Second, all sides (liberals, conservatives, moderates) have trolls and jerks among them.

Third, if it's a forum run by a non-government source, the First Amendment doesn't apply. They don't have to let someone (or anyone for that matter) use their forum. Especially if they break the rules of the forum.

Fourth, there is a difference between open debate and toxic posting. I fully believe in open debate. You might not change my mind on a topic, but I welcome an honest and open debate. But some people don't want to debate. They want to shout down, or harass, or whatever. And unless you have a crack moderator staff, you can't always keep on top of this sort of thing, especially if it's a large/popular forum.

I speak from some experience on both sides of this. Some years ago, I was a moderator on an MMO forum for Dark Age of Camelot. It wasn't a forum run by the company that made DAOC, it was a fan forum. I ended up as a moderator (much to my surprise) for regularly giving helpful information and trying to be a good guy. While I was a moderator, we had to put people in various lengths of "time out" for being jerks, or abusing the forum rules, or spamming, or whatever.

Shockingly, the moderators weren't always the most popular people with the friends of the trolls.

On the other side of the fence, there was (possibly still is) a forum for a group called Christian Exodus. Among their stated goals is (as a last resort), the idea of moving enough followers to a specific U.S. state (South Carolina), to try and influence enough elections and legislators to make it a more Christian state. Actually, their absolute last resort was to have SC secede from the U.S.

I was banned from their forums because I would do things like remind them that the last time that SC seceded, it didn't go all that well, or remind them that there's more than one version of the Bible (they were very focused on returning to doing _exactly_ what the Bible said), and so on. I was enjoying myself, but I can't really say it came as a shock when I was banned from posting on their forum.

Comment Re:Incorrect (Score 0) 139

Imagine thousands of gallons of water rushing through a sewer drain. Mixed up in there is animal feces, decaying plant matter, and whatever else is swept up off the street.

Now, technically, that's more actual water than what is coming out of your kitchen sink tap. But I'm pretty sure that you'd rather drink the tap water than a random sampling of sewer drain water.

Quantity is not the same as quality.

Now, clearly, not every bit of news that Fox News puts out is terrible. It's not all sewer water quality. Frankly, I will take Fox News over damn near any celebrity news site (but that is because I largely hate celebrity news sites). But relying _solely_ on Fox News, or on any one news site.... it's not a good idea.

It's much better to get your news from a wide variety of sources, because then the biases from the various sources can potentially even out. Okay, sure, if they're all conservative sources or all liberal sources, the biases don't even out. No news site is going to be perfect. So let's stop pretending that Fox News is, okay?

News, all news, has biases. And all news, especially in the last dozen or so years, is far more interested in ratings than news. If news happens to bring in the ratings or the page views, so much the better. It brings to mind an occasion from some years ago, when (at the time) Israel was pounding Palestine like cheap veal. CNN was showing news stories about that. MSNBC was showing news stories about that.

But when I looked at what Fox News was showing, they had a "human interest" piece about a horse, stuck in the mud, in Texas. And as the top of the hour came along, they said "Here's the top stories" and of course, mentioned the Israel/Palestine news. And then went back to the horse.

Ratings, not news. That's all that's important to them.

Comment Re:WTF? (Score 1) 652

Yeah, but most people don't have their Twitter handles tattooed on their foreheads. (Neither do I, it was just the most over-the-top thing I could think of.)

So, a visitor to the U.S. would still have to tell the government stooge their Twitter handle and password. The point being, if they just turned over a Twitter handle, how does the government stooge prove that it's that visitor's Twitter account? Clearly, if you know the password, that goes a long way towards proving that.

Except, what's keeping someone from just saying that they don't have a Twitter account? It's not nearly as ubiquitous as a Facebook account. And hell, I know people who don't have a Facebook account either.

Comment Re:Welcome to Night Vale! (Score 2) 268

The City Council announces the opening of a new Dog Park at the corner of Earl and Somerset, near the Ralphâ(TM)s. They would like to remind everyone that dogs are not allowed in the Dog Park. People are not allowed in the Dog Park. It is possible you will see Hooded Figures in the Dog Park. Do not approach them. Do not approach the Dog Park. The fence is electrified and highly dangerous. Try not to look at the Dog Park, and especially do not look for any period of time at the Hooded Figures. The Dog Park will not harm you.

Comment Re:how about this (Score 5, Insightful) 626

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most, if not all, of those 97 companies are global. When one country does {stupid thing}, other countries tend to react to that by doing their own {differently stupid but related thing}. That makes it very hard to continue doing business effectively.

Now, are these companies uncaring about people in their own backyard? Well, technically, yes. But no more so than normal. They want to continue to make profits. If they could make lots of money by treating all employees like fluffy bunnies who just need a hug, they would. Especially if they would make less money by being uncaring.

But most companies do not shit on their employees without a reason. And most companies want employee morale to be good, as it increase productivity. If employees are worried about being stranded in another country because the country they work in is passing poorly thought out travel laws, it tends to affect employee morale negatively.

Comment Re:how about this (Score 4, Insightful) 626

Or, and I'm just throwing this out there....

it's a terribly conceived, poorly written, and horribly implemented EO that doesn't actually make the U.S. safer, provides our enemies with the recruitment point they've been wanting for years, and conveniently leaves out countries in the Middle East where terrorists who have killed people on U.S. soil have come from. (They're also countries that Trump has business interests in, but I'm sure that's just an amazing coincidence.)

Slashdot Top Deals

Practical people would be more practical if they would take a little more time for dreaming. -- J. P. McEvoy

Working...