Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Worse (Score 1) 391

Hmm. Here's a correction that's prevents the irony in your statement:

"Ad-Hominem attacks are a concession of defeat. The more names they call you, the greater your victory"

Although I would argue that calling someone a name is not a concession of defeat. It is more the demonstration of an inability to make a reasoned argument and/or to contain ones emotions, or a clever way to demonise someone based on the target audience. Arrghgh - I guess it's quite hard to generalise what an ad-hominem attack says about someone.

Comment Re:Worse (Score 1) 391

Hatred of a group isn't bigotry - that's called hatred. Hating people of another race (including white people!) is called racism, not bigotry.

A more practical definition of bigotry is someone who will not tolerate others who have a different opinion. E.g. "You think women already have equal rights??? What!! You are a misogynist!". That statement is the statement of a bigot. An unbigoted statement would be "No, you're utterly wrong - actually they lack the right to [bla bla]".

For the record, I am a left leaning liberal who thinks everyone should have a good education for free, or reasonable fee, and free healthcare, and that everyone has the right to be fed, clothed, and sheltered. But I don't go around demonising those that disagree with me. It is those people, that go around demonising others, that I call bigots. And I am correct in my assertion.

Comment Re:Worse (Score 3, Insightful) 391

In regards to your sig, "Ad-Hominem attacks are the liberals concession of defeat. The more names they call you, the greater your victory"

Is unfair to actual liberals. Do a quick look up of "liberal" in the dictionary. The regressive left are anything BUT liberal. They are in fact bigots, who, ironically, call anyone that disagrees with them a bigot.

Comment Re:And this is interesting because? (Score 2) 377


Extortion is "the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats".

Snapchat was threatening to display pro-gun ads during an anti-gun livestream unless the owners paid up. Sounds like the literal definition of extortion to me.

If you read the actual article, you'll find that the person who did that was also being vindictive.

Submission + - Trump's Next Immigration Move to Hit Tech Workers (

AdamnSelene writes: A report in Bloomberg describes a draft executive order that will hit the tech industry hard and potentially change the way those companies recruit workers from abroad. The H-1B, L-1, E-2, and B1 work visa programs would be targeted by requiring companies to prioritize higher-paid immigrant workers over lower-paid workers. In addition, the order will impose statistical reporting requirements on tech companies who sponsor workers under these programs. The order is expected to impact STEM workers from India the most.

Submission + - Creator of Pac-Man Dies at Age 91 (

An anonymous reader writes: WSJ, CNET, Fox News, NYT and others are reporting that Masaya Nakamura, the “Father of Pac-Man”, has died at the age of 91.

Nakamura founded Namco, part of Bandai Namco, in 1955. It started out as just two mechanical horse rides on a department store rooftop but went on to pioneer game arcades and amusement parks.

"The game was nonviolent but just challenging enough to hook players into steering the Pac-Man for hours through its mazes on the hunt for ghostly tidbits."

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 1) 433

I don't know about law in any of the US, but in the UK: a private letter is considered to be "published", for libel purposes, the moment it is opened (by someone other than the party being libelled, or someone acting as their agent and with their express permission to open it)

Yes. It is roughly the same in the U.S. See HERE, in the section headed "Publication".

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 1) 433

With the intent to cause damage. Look it up. They damaged party has to prove intent. Which is why there are almost never successful; libel or slander cases in the US.

This is not true. At least in most states, intent to harm is not required.

What IS usually required is to show that the accused knew, or reasonably should have known, that the statement was false.

That is not quite the same thing.

Comment Re:This. Libel need not be public, but must be unt (Score 1) 433

It's amazing to me how many people don't get the difference between stating an opinion and stating something as fact. I am thinking of a certain Slashdot frequenter who fits that profile.

There is a great deal of legal precedent in that regard. For example, calling someone "an ass" or similar is pretty definitely an opinion, even if it's stated as though it were fact: "You're an ass."

In college law classes there is a rather famous case study from, I think, the 17th century.

A guest at an inn told the innkeeper: "My horse can pisse better ale than you serve here."

The innkeeper sued the customer for slander. The judge ruled: "The accused did not slander the innkeeper. He complimented his horse."

So, while there are lines as to what is acceptable speech and what is not, it pays to be cognizant of where those lines are. And many people have no clue.

Comment Re:Leave. (Score 4, Informative) 433

This is quite incorrect. I would say dangerously incorrect. At least in most of the U.S.

In general, actionable defamation (of which libel and slander are particular examples) only requires that you express untrue, damaging things to someone other than the party you are referring to. There is NO specific requirement that it be public.

And "damage" is used loosely here. Damage could mean damage to their career, or damage to their public reputation, or even just damage to a single friend's opinion of them.

If you wrote untrue, damaging things in a document to your HR department, that could definitely be considered libel, and would likely be actionable. Specific cases vary, but again in general.

Of course, truth is (again in general... most U.S. states) an absolute defense. So if what you wrote is true and you can demonstrate that it is, by a preponderance of evidence, then you're probably safe. But you'd better have that evidence.

In addition, most corporations have as part of their employment conditions that you can't sue the company or other employees as a result of negative opinions expressed as part of "official" company communications, such as an employee review or exit interview.

Again in the U.S., that is simply not true. "Most" corporations do NOT have such a clause in their contract, and there is a very strong push to stop that practice in those states where it is still allowed. Because in some states such clauses are specifically prohibited by law, and the list of those states is growing.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries