Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment Re:Eight function toilet? (Score 1) 181

How does it clean with just water?

I think most people have no clue of the amount of water pressure available on most of these toilets. Somebody posted a link to a photo down thread, but this isn't your typical European bidet with the water pressure that sort of "oozes" out like a gentle faucet or something. Most of the Japanese toilets can start at that low level of pressure, but you can generally turn them up so high you could basically give yourself an enema with one.

Comment Re:Share and Enjoy! (Score 1) 181

And if you get it wrong, it pisses right back at you!

Yes, I first visited Japan around 1990, and I remember the first time I encountered one of those toilets. (Well, the functions weren't quite as advanced as what you linked, but still several odd buttons.)

Curious, I pressed a couple of buttons (expecting maybe a different flush or something -- one of the buttons played music or something, if I recall), and that exact scene happened to me. Some bizarre protuberance jutted forth from the back of the toilet and sprayed water all over the room. Thank goodness I wasn't sitting on it at the time, because I think it was set to maximum jet force, and I don't think I have the right "demeanor" to appreciate that.

Instead I just had to mop up the room. And later had a really awkward conversation in broken English/Japanese with my hostess about why her towels were all soaked.

I've since encountered these toilets many times and have thought of getting one myself. But if I ever owned a home with one, I'd put up an instruction sheet in 5 languages on the wall or something when guests came by.

Comment Re:Only a fraction of US munitions... (Score 1) 197

We bomb brown people because we can get away with it. That's more opportunist than racist, but it's still racist.

As soon as "white" people start doing the same crap, it happens to them too. I'm guessing you're wishing away that pesky little Balkan conflict a few years back, where we bombed white people for, among other things, slaughtering olive people.

Pretending that it's skin color that makes ISIS a fair target for air strikes is the worst sort of craven intellectual laziness.

Comment Re: Fucking bullshit ... (Score 3, Insightful) 279

First, I want to be clear that I don't know what Trump did here -- whether or not his actions were appropriate given the circumstances, etc. However...

If you've ever kissed a girl without asking her explicitly 'can I kiss you now?' you've pretty much done what Trump has done.

Wow. Setting aside the fact that groping genitals is generally considered at least a little more intimate than a kiss, there IS something about his phrasing that makes this SOUND a little different from your scenario.

Namely, Trump says "I don't even wait." Your interpretation is that he doesn't preface a kiss without some Victorian protocol saying, "Dear lady, may I be granted the favor of a kiss?" or something. Yes, I suppose it could mean that. It could also mean that Trump is implying he doesn't even "wait" for implied consent. (In the context of the quote, it sounds like he's talking about novel encounters with people he doesn't know well, rather than a sort of "date context" or something where the "implied consent" might be easier to tease out. ) But I agree that we don't have enough context to know precisely what he meant here. HOWEVER, I think the more concerning turn of phrase comes later in your quotation, namely "when you're a star they LET you do it".

That's not a phrase of implied consent. He doesn't say, "When you're a star they WANT you to do it." The implication of the phrasing is that the woman is "letting" you do something that she's at best somewhat ambivalent about. If we're only talking about a kiss, maybe that amounts to a miscue or sexual harassment. But then Trump follows it with "You can do anything" and then talking about groping genitals. Again, no mention of the woman's desire or wishes -- "You can do anything."

So, IF one chooses to take the preceding "they LET you do it" to mean the woman is giving less than strong affirmation even for a kiss, following it up with crotch grab just because "you can do anything" might be mistaken -- in this linguistic context -- as implying sexual assault.

Again, I don't know whether Trump was actually intending to say that, because he says all sorts of crap that he obviously doesn't mean literally. He also could just be bragging in the context where this statement was recorded, rather than referring to his actual practice. Or whatever.

But if you take his PHRASING literally, it seems to indicate significantly more aggressive behavior than simply failing to offer a Victorian verbal query before a kiss.

Comment [Corrected post] (Score 3, Insightful) 279

Apologies for the repeated post, but I accidentally did an incorrect "cut-and-paste" right before hitting "submit," which resulted in repeating the words of much of the post several times.

Consider people who say 'darn, frick', etc.. We all know what they're saying, and they're really lying to themselves by 'editing' how they're expressing themselves.

There are various reasons people avoid profanity, but one of the primary reasons is out of politeness or concern for not offending those around them. Some might consider failure to adhere to politeness conventions to be "honesty in expression," but it could also simply be a social convention. I reflexively say "Thank you" to the toll-booth person who accepts my toll, but I'm not actually grateful to them. It's just a social convention and reflex to thank people who provide a service to you. Similarly, I walk around saying "How are you?" to people as I pass them in the hallway or whatever, but it's well-known that most people aren't seriously asking that question in more than a cursory "standard greeting" sense.

Are all of these people "lying" or not being "honest"? Or are they simply falling social convention, which also dictates that profanity is inappropriate in various social situations?

My distinction here is not a minor one, because desirability to adhere to social convention is actually arguably what this study measured, rather than "honesty" or whatever. There were three different components to this study. All have some problems.

(1) The first used Amazon Mechanical Turk to get people to answer a bunch of personality questions. There was no actual assessment of whether people were ACTUALLY lying. instead, they were given a series of questions "using the Lie subscale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised short scale," However, despite its name, this test isn't actually used to determine whether people are prone to lie in general! This subscale is used, as the study notes, for social desirability responding.

That is, in the context of a personality test, this set of questions is used to fish out the people who are likely choosing answers based a little more on their "idealized" personality traits or what they might think would be "likeable," rather than being more realistic in their responses. Rather than a sort of "lie detector" test, it's more a test of how much a person wants to represent themselves as socially desirable. It has questions like, "If you say you will do something, do you always keep your promise no matter how inconvenient it might be?" If you answer "yes," the test assumes you to be a LIAR. But of course it has no way of knowing whether you are lying -- it rather assumes if you have more idealistic norms about social behavior that you're more likely to less realistic in your own self-reporting for personality questions.

Anyhow, this is a TERRIBLE proxy for "dishonesty" generally. It basically is measuring how close people want to try to adhere to social norms. And avoiding profanity in many situations is also trying to adhere to social norms. So it's basically a tautology that they found a correlation in the first study.

(2) Okay, on to the next one. Here, again, they didn't actually determine whether people were telling falsehoods. Rather, they looked at a bunch of Facebook messages and statistically analyzed how many times people used 1st and 3rd person pronouns, motion verbs, and anxiety words. They claim that this is a good way to tell how "honest" people are. Except the study they use as a benchmark to calibrate the frequency of these linguistic categories (this study) involved people giving detailed responses to prompts, both telling the truth and lying. The average words for the samples varied from 124 words for one category (people expressing a position on abortion while videotaped) up to 529 words (were people expressed an opinion about friends on a video tape).

How many Facebook posts do you see with at least 124 words in them, let alone over 500 words? Do you think the linguistic characteristics of lying vs. telling the truth might be slightly different for a brief Facebook status update, compared to a several minute video of someone expressing a detailed viewpoint on something or someone?

Basically, this part of the study found Facebook users who used more pronouns, were more anxious, and used more action verbs were also more likely to use profanity... well, the correlation isn't that strong (r=0.20); the scatterplots are pretty much all over the map.

But again, hardly a good proxy for "dishonesty."

(3) Now, the last one. They then compared these Facebook posts by state to the ratings of states by the "State Integrity Investigation 2012." More or less, this government ranking system looks at transparency in government, the presence of ethics commissions, and checks and balances across branches of state government. Again, is this actually a good proxy for "honesty" even in government? I would just note that New Jersey scores at the top of this "integrity" score list. I think that says enough to anyone who knows anything about NJ politics.

And even if this were a decent measure of government accountability, why should this correlate with the use of profanity in Facebook posts of people from that state?

Even more concerning is whether the stats actually support this integrity measure as a proxy for honesty in the study itself, rather than regional social norms. Turns out when they did a geographical correlation for profanity usage by state that clustered by proximity, it came out with r=0.55, as opposed to r=0.35 for correlation between profanity with state "integrity" rankings. In other words, you'd have a much better predictor if you knew where roughly somebody was from in the country and what states are around them rather than using these "integrity" ranking scores.

Once again, we're likely measuring regional social norms, rather than much about actual "dishonesty."

Of the three parts of this study, the only part that even comes close to measuring actual profanity use correlated with some metric of honesty is part (2), but even there the measure of honesty is based on linguistic frequency patterns that were originally found in longer discussions in deliberate position statements, not Facebook posts.

Maybe there's something to be teased out of this mess. But the authors' use of the word "dishonesty" in their discussion section to characterize all these disparate measures (a personalty test model that isn't designed to detect actual lying but merely desirability to adhere to social norms, a linguistic frequency measure designed for other types of statements, and a flawed state "integrity" measure) is frankly disingenuous at best... but really is pretty much a deception itself. Ironically, the study contains few uses of profanity. Are we to conclude it is therefore likely to be more dishonest?

Comment Re:Seems plausible (Score 1) 279

Consider people who say 'darn, frick', etc.. We all know what they're saying, and they're really lying to themselves by 'editing' how they're expressing themselves.

There are various reasons people avoid profanity, but one of the primary reasons is out of politeness or concern for not offending those around them. Some might consider failure to adhere to politeness conventions to be "honesty in expression," but it could also simply be a social convention. I reflexively say "Thank you" to the toll-booth person who accepts my toll, but I'm not actually grateful to them. It's just a social convention and reflex to thank people who provide a service to you. Similarly, I walk around saying "How are you?" to people as I pass them in the hallway or whatever, but it's well-known that most people aren't seriously asking that question in more than a cursory "standard greeting" sense.

Are all of these people "lying" or not being "honest"? Or are they simply falling social convention, which also dictates that profanity is inappropriate in various social situations?

My distinction here is not a minor one, because desirability to adhere to social convention is actually arguably what this study measured, rather than "honesty" or wh

Consider people who say 'darn, frick', etc.. We all know what they're saying, and they're really lying to themselves by 'editing' how they're expressing themselves.

There are various reasons people avoid profanity, but one of the primary reasons is out of politeness or concern for not offending those around them. Some might consider failure to adhere to politeness conventions to be "honesty in expression," but it could also simply be a social convention. I reflexively say "Thank you" to the toll-booth person who accepts my toll, but I'm not actually grateful to them. It's just a social convention and reflex to thank people who provide a service to you. Similarly, I walk around saying "How are you?" to people as I pass them in the hallway or whatever, but it's well-known that most people aren't seriously asking that question in more than a cursory "standard greeting" sense.

Are all of these people "lying" or not being "honest"? Or are they simply falling social convention, which also dictates that profanity is inappropriate in various social situations?

My distinction here is not a minor one, because desirability to adhere to social convention is actually arguably what this study measured, rather than "honesty" or whatever.

There were three different components to this study. All have some problems.

(1) The first used Amazon Mechanical Turk to get people to answer a bunch of personality questions. There was no actual assessment of whether people were ACTUALLY lying. instead, they were given a series of questions "using the Lie subscale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised short scale," However, despite its name, this test isn't actually used to determine whether people are prone to lie in general! This subscale is used, as the study notes, for social desirability responding.

That is, in the context of a personality test, this set of questions is used to fish out the people who are likely choosing answers based a little more on their "idealized" personality traits or what they might think would be "likeable," rather than being more realistic in their responses. Rather than a sort of "lie detector" test, it's more a test of how much a person wants to represent themselves as socially desirable. It has questions like, "If you say you will do something, do you always keep your promise no matter how inconvenient it might be?" If you answer "yes," the test assumes you to be a LIAR. But of course it has no way of knowing whether you are lying -- it rather assumes if you have more idealistic norms about social behavior that you're more likely to less realistic in your own self-reporting for personality questions.

Anyhow, this is a TERRIBLE proxy for "dishonesty" generally. It basically is measuring how close people want to try to adhere to social norms. And avoiding profanity in many situations is also trying to adhere to social norms. So it's basically a tautology that they found a correlation in the first study.

(2) Okay, on to the next one. Here, again, they didn't actually determine whether people were telling falsehoods. Rather, they looked at a bunch of Facebook messages and statistically analyzed how many times people used 1st and 3rd person pronouns, motion verbs, and anxiety words. They claim that this is a good way to tell how "honest" people are. Except the study they use as a benchmark to calibrate the frequency of these linguistic categories (this study) involved people giving detailed responses to prompts, both telling the truth and lying. The average words for the samples varied from 124 words for one category (people expressing a position on abortion while videotaped) up to 529 words (were people expressed an opinion about friends on a video tape).

How many Facebook posts do you see with at least 124 words in them, let alone over 500 words? Do you think the linguistic characteristics of lying vs. telling the truth might be slightly different for a brief Facebook status update, compared to a several minute video of someone expressing a detailed viewpoint on something or someone?

Basically, this part of the study found Facebook users who used more pronouns, were more anxious, and used more action verbs were also more likely to use profanity... well, the correlation isn't that strong (r=0.20); the scatterplots are pretty much all over the map.

But again, hardly a good proxy for "dishonesty." (3) Now, the last one. They then compared these Facebook posts by state to the ratings of states by the "State Integrity Investigation 2012." More or less, this government ranking system looks at transparency in government, the presence of ethics commissions, and checks and balances across branches of state government. Again, is this actually a good proxy for "honesty" even in government? I would just note that New Jersey scores at the top of this "integrity" score list. I think that says enough to anyone who knows anything about NJ politics.

And even if this were a decent measure of government accountability, why should this correlate with "honesty" in Facebook posts of people from that state?

Even more concerning is whether the stats actually support this integrity measure as a proxy for honesty in the study itself, rather than regional social norms. Turns out when they did a geographical correlation for profanity usage by state that clustered by proximity, it came out with r=0.55, as opposed to r=0.35 for correlation between profanity with state "integrity" rankings. In other words, you'd have a much better predictor if you knew where roughly somebody was from in the country and what states are around them rather than using these "integrity" ranking scores.

Once again, we're likely measuring regional social norms, rather than much about actual "dishonesty."

Of the three parts of this study, the only part that even comes close to measuring actual profanity use correlated with some metric of honesty is part (2), but even there the measure of honesty is based on linguistic frequency patterns that were originally found in longer discussions in deliberate position statements, not Facebook posts.

Maybe there's something to be teased out of this mess. But the authors' use of the word "dishonesty" in their discussion section to characterize all these disparate measures (a personalty test model that isn't designed to detect actual lying but merely desirability to adhere to social norms,

Consider people who say 'darn, frick', etc.. We all know what they're saying, and they're really lying to themselves by 'editing' how they're expressing themselves.

There are various reasons people avoid profanity, but one of the primary reasons is out of politeness or concern for not offending those around them. Some might consider failure to adhere to politeness conventions to be "honesty in expression," but it could also simply be a social convention. I reflexively say "Thank you" to the toll-booth person who accepts my toll, but I'm not actually grateful to them. It's just a social convention and reflex to thank people who provide a service to you. Similarly, I walk around saying "How are you?" to people as I pass them in the hallway or whatever, but it's well-known that most people aren't seriously asking that question in more than a cursory "standard greeting" sense.

Are all of these people "lying" or not being "honest"? Or are they simply falling social convention, which also dictates that profanity is inappropriate in various social situations?

My distinction here is not a minor one, because desirability to adhere to social convention is actually arguably what this study measured, rather than "honesty" or whatever.

There were three different components to this study. All have some problems.

(1) The first used Amazon Mechanical Turk to get people to answer a bunch of personality questions. There was no actual assessment of whether people were ACTUALLY lying. instead, they were given a series of questions "using the Lie subscale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised short scale," However, despite its name, this test isn't actually used to determine whether people are prone to lie in general! This subscale is used, as the study notes, for social desirability responding.

That is, in the context of a personality test, this set of questions is used to fish out the people who are likely choosing answers based a little more on their "idealized" personality traits or what they might think would be "likeable," rather than being more realistic in their responses. Rather than a sort of "lie detector" test, it's more a test of how much a person wants to represent themselves as socially desirable. It has questions like, "If you say you will do something, do you always keep your promise no matter how inconvenient it might be?" If you answer "yes," the test assumes you to be a LIAR. But of course it has no way of knowing whether you are lying -- it rather assumes if you have more idealistic norms about social behavior that you're more likely to less realistic in your own self-reporting for personality questions.

Anyhow, this is a TERRIBLE proxy for "dishonesty" generally. It basically is measuring how close people want to try to adhere to social norms. And avoiding profanity in many situations is also trying to adhere to social norms. So it's basically a tautology that they found a correlation in the first study.

(2) Okay, on to the next one. Here, again, they didn't actually determine whether people were telling falsehoods. Rather, they looked at a bunch of Facebook messages and statistically analyzed how many times people used 1st and 3rd person pronouns, motion verbs, and anxiety words. They claim that this is a good way to tell how "honest" people are. Except the study they use as a benchmark to calibrate the frequency of these linguistic categories (this study) involved people giving detailed responses to prompts, both telling the truth and lying. The average words for the samples varied from 124 words for one category (people expressing a position on abortion while videotaped) up to 529 words (were people expressed an opinion about friends on a video tape).

How many Facebook posts do you see with at least 124 words in them, let alone over 500 words? Do you think the linguistic characteristics of lying vs. telling the truth might be slightly different for a brief Facebook status update, compared to a several minute video of someone expressing a detailed viewpoint on something or someone?

Basically, this part of the study found Facebook users who used more pronouns, were more anxious, and used more action verbs were also more likely to use profanity... well, the correlation isn't that strong (r=0.20); the scatterplots are pretty much all over the map.

But again, hardly a good proxy for "dishonesty." (3) Now, the last one. They then compared these Facebook posts by state to the ratings of states by the "State Integrity Investigation 2012." More or less, this government ranking system looks at transparency in government, the presence of ethics commissions, and checks and balances across branches of state government. Again, is this actually a good proxy for "honesty" even in government? I would just note that New Jersey scores at the top of this "integrity" score list. I think that says enough to anyone who knows anything about NJ politics.

And even if this were a decent measure of government accountability, why should this correlate with the use of profanity in Facebook posts of people from that state?

Even more concerning is whether the stats actually support this integrity measure as a proxy for honesty in the study itself, rather than regional social norms. Turns out when they did a geographical correlation for profanity usage by state that clustered by proximity, it came out with r=0.55, as opposed to r=0.35 for correlation between profanity with state "integrity" rankings. In other words, you'd have a much better predictor if you knew where roughly somebody was from in the country and what states are around them rather than using these "integrity" ranking scores.

Once again, we're likely measuring regional social norms, rather than much about actual "dishonesty."

Of the three parts of this study, the only part that even comes close to measuring actual profanity use correlated with some metric of honesty is part (2), but even there the measure of honesty is based on linguistic frequency patterns that were originally found in longer discussions in deliberate position statements, not Facebook posts.

Maybe there's something to be teased out of this mess. But the authors' use of the word "dishonesty" in their discussion section to characterize all these disparate measures (a personalty test model that isn't designed to detect actual lying but merely desirability to adhere to social norms, a linguistic frequency measure designed for other types of statements, and a flawed state "integrity" measure) is frankly disingenuous at best... but really is pretty much a deception itself.a linguistic frequency measure designed for other types of statements, and a flawed state "integrity" measure) is frankly disingenuous at best... but really is pretty much a deception itself.atever.

There were three different components to this study. All have some problems.

(1) The first used Amazon Mechanical Turk to get people to answer a bunch of personality questions. There was no actual assessment of whether people were ACTUALLY lying. instead, they were given a series of questions "using the Lie subscale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised short scale," However, despite its name, this test isn't actually used to determine whether people are prone to lie in general! This subscale is used, as the study notes, for social desirability responding.

That is, in the context of a personality test, this set of questions is used to fish out the people who are likely choosing answers based a little more on their "idealized" personality traits or what they might think would be "likeable," rather than being more realistic in their responses. Rather than a sort of "lie detector" test, it's more a test of how much a person wants to represent themselves as socially desirable. It has questions like, "If you say you will do something, do you always keep your promise no matter how inconvenient it might be?" If you answer "yes," the test assumes you to be a LIAR. But of course it has no way of knowing whether you are lying -- it rather assumes if you have more idealistic norms about social behavior that you're more likely to less realistic in your own self-reporting for personality questions.

Anyhow, this is a TERRIBLE proxy for "dishonesty" generally. It basically is measuring how close people want to try to adhere to social norms. And avoiding profanity in many situations is also trying to adhere to social norms. So it's basically a tautology that they found a correlation in the first study.

(2) Okay, on to the next one. Here, again, they didn't actually determine whether people were telling falsehoods. Rather, they looked at a bunch of Facebook messages and statistically analyzed how many times people used 1st and 3rd person pronouns, motion verbs, and anxiety words. They claim that this is a good way to tell how "honest" people are. Except the study they use as a benchmark to calibrate the frequency of these linguistic categories (this study) involved people giving detailed responses to prompts, both telling the truth and lying. The average words for the samples varied from 124 words for one category (people expressing a position on abortion while videotaped) up to 529 words (were people expressed an opinion about friends on a video tape).

How many Facebook posts do you see with at least 124 words in them, let alone over 500 words? Do you think the linguistic characteristics of lying vs. telling the truth might be slightly different for a brief Facebook status update, compared to a several minute video of someone expressing a detailed viewpoint on something or someone?

Basically, this part of the study found Facebook users who used more pronouns, were more anxious, and used more action verbs were also more likely to use profanity... well, the correlation isn't that strong (r=0.20); the scatterplots are pretty much all over the map.

But again, hardly a good proxy for "dishonesty."

(3) Now, the last one. They then compared these Facebook posts by state to the ratings of states by the "State Integrity Investigation 2012." More or less, this government ranking system looks at transparency in government, the presence of ethics commissions, and checks and balances across branches of state government. Again, is this actually a good proxy for "honesty" even in government? I would just note that New Jersey scores at the top of this "integrity" score list. I think that says enough to anyone who knows anything about NJ politics.

And even if this were a decent measure of government accountability, why should this correlate with the use of profanity in Facebook posts of people from that state?

Even more concerning is whether the stats actually support this integrity measure as a proxy for honesty in the study itself, rather than regional social norms. Turns out when they did a geographical correlation for profanity usage by state that clustered by proximity, it came out with r=0.55, as opposed to r=0.35 for correlation between profanity with state "integrity" rankings. In other words, you'd have a much better predictor if you knew where roughly somebody was from in the country and what states are around them rather than using these "integrity" ranking scores.

Once again, we're likely measuring regional social norms, rather than much about actual "dishonesty."

Of the three parts of this study, the only part that even comes close to measuring actual profanity use correlated with some metric of honesty is part (2), but even there the measure of honesty is based on linguistic frequency patterns that were originally found in longer discussions in deliberate position statements, not Facebook posts.

Maybe there's something to be teased out of this mess. But the authors' use of the word "dishonesty" in their discussion section to characterize all these disparate measures (a personalty test model that isn't designed to detect actual lying but merely desirability to adhere to social norms, a linguistic frequency measure designed for other types of statements, and a flawed state "integrity" measure) is frankly disingenuous at best... but really is pretty much a deception itself. Ironically, the study contains few uses of profanity. Are we to conclude it is therefore likely to be more dishonest?

Space

Japanese Spacecraft Spots Massive Gravity Wave In Venus' Atmosphere (theverge.com) 82

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The Japanese probe Akatsuki has observed a massive gravity wave in the atmosphere of Venus. This is not the first time such a wave was observed on the Solar System's second planet, but it is the largest ever recorded, stretching just over 6,000 miles from end to end. Its features also suggest that the dynamics of Venus' atmosphere are more complex than previously thought. An atmospheric gravity wave is a ripple in the density of a planet's atmosphere, according to the European Space Agency. Akatsuki spotted this particular gravity wave, described in a paper published today in Nature Geoscience, when the probe arrived at the planet on December 7th, 2015. The spacecraft then lost sight of it on December 12th, 2015, because of a change in Akatsuki's orbit. When the probe returned to a position to observe the bow-shaped structure on January 15th, 2016, the bright wave had vanished. What sets the huge December wave apart from previously discovered ones is that it appeared to be stationary above a mountainous region on the planet's surface, despite the background atmospheric winds. The study's authors believe that the bright structure is the result of a gravity wave that was formed in the lower atmosphere as it flowed over the planet's mountainous terrain. It's not clear how the wave exactly propagates to the planet's upper atmosphere, where clouds rotate faster than the planets itself -- four days instead of the 243 days it takes Venus to rotate once.

Comment Re:Only a fraction of US munitions... (Score 2, Funny) 197

Our Nobel Peace Prize President dropped 26,000 bombs (real bombs, not little hand grenades)

Probably a lot more than that. You're not understanding the usefulness of air strikes on this sort of combatant.

on various brown people

Right, right. It's because of their skin pigment! For reference, resorting to lazy race baiting doesn't really win arguments (see the most recent election results as an example)

(even though we are not at war).

Yes, I can see you're having some trouble grasping current events. Please don't do anything dangerous to other people in the future. Like, voting.

Comment Re: He cheated OTHER players (Score 5, Insightful) 400

No rule of the casino was broken, they're nullifying it because state law says the presence of marked cards means the game is not lawfully played and thus void regardless of whose fault that is.

Exactly. A lot of people posting here are missing the legal reasoning of the ruling, which is NOT based on the fact that these two guys acted fraudulently, but rather the fact that the game was VOID from the start because it did not conform to the rules for LEGAL gambling and gaming under state law.

But there's something very odd about using that reasoning in this case, because the casino explicitly agreed to the terms of these guys -- including offering a specific card deck, instructing the dealer to turn cards based on player's instructions, instructing the dealer NOT to disturb card rotation prior to reshuffles, etc. That all is suspicious enough, and casinos generally do NOT allow players to dictate that many rules to avoid PRECISELY these kinds of problems. I'd imagine the only reason they allowed it in this case is because they hoped to sucker more money out of a high profile gambler. Unfortunately, their strategy of offering a MODIFIED GAME failed when it was they who were suckered out of money.

But why does the fault then fall only on the players? From the ruling conclusion:

As we previously found, by their own design, Ivey and Sun played games at Borgata that violated important provisions of the CCA and thereby breached their agreement with the casino. They must disgorge the benefit they received as a direct result of the breached contract

Yes, "Ivey and Sun played games" but the casino offered the marked deck and agreed to numerous manipulations that ultimately modified the odds. If this was indeed an "illegal game" under state law, why is the casino not culpable, at least for negligence for failing to adhere to reasonable gaming standards and thereby offering illegal gaming? If a private person ran a flawed game like this, they'd likely end up fined or even in prison. And likely any money transferred during illegal gaming would be confiscated.

I'm fine if the casino wants to argue that it engaged in offering an illegal game, but by doing so, they should submit to being punished according to provisions for offering illegal gaming in their state (including government confiscation of winnings). But if they don't want to argue they were engaging in illegal gaming by THEMSELVES offering marked cards, etc., then they'll likely just have to admit they were fools and just live with banning these people from their casino in the future, rather than recovering money. Or, they could actually prove the defendants committed FRAUD in some way to void the contract. (And maybe there is enough evidence to support that; I don't know. But it's not the legal reasoning used here.) The way the case was decided is not very consistent legally.

Comment Re:Top priority? Always? (Score 1) 144

If your companies top priority is to keep data secure, they how/why did you get hacked. They always say that, but clearly that is not the Top Priority

I see you're doing your part by not using dangerous apostrophes where they are needed!

Implicit in any company's statement that security is their top priority is the large bundle of compromises that don't go away whether or not that is your top priority. They could make the data perfectly secure by disconnecting the servers and putting them in a bank vault. They could make sure the data can't be breached by simply destroying all of it. See?

Security can be your Top Priority, but it has to be done in the context of things like still making it available to users across the internet. Doing it while not going bankrupt. Making the service competitively priced so that it can actually be afforded and put to work.

They could have said that the system could only be used on equipment they ship to their clients, connected to the back end through a hardware-based dedicated VPN with biometrics, dongles, and constant nagging by three-factor comms surrounding every time someone hits the enter key ... and of course nobody could or would want to use the system or pay the monthly fee needed to keep something like that alive.

They may very well put security at a higher priority than chipping away at a long list of UX updates, performance under load, documentation, multi-language support, and a thousand other things. Doesn't mean that doing so means they'll be perfect in their security results. Ever run a business like that? No? Give it a whirl. Make security your top priority, and then start paying attention to what that decision means in real life - including in your ability to get and retain customers during that balancing act.

Comment Re:Huge numbers! (Score 1) 272

What? Tens of millions of people routinely bitch, in public with their names attached, about every possible person, agency, posture, act, policy and purpose of government across the spectrum from the local PTA to city, county, state, federal, and international governance. There is nothing "brave" about parroting a lazy meme about freeing Snowden from prosecution for some very cut and dry real crimes. Your sense of drama is wildly disconnected from reality. Show me a single person, ever, who has been put into any sort of legal jeopardy for saying out loud, "Snowden should be pardoned." A single example. Specifically.

Comment Re:An awful lot of hating on colleges here. (Score 3, Informative) 495

You're missing quite a few things here. Decline in government subsidies has been a factor, particularly at state institutions. But you also have a lot of other "run like a business" stuff that's taken over higher ed in the past couple decades. The two biggest factors are (1) growth of unnecessary administrative bureaucracy (at many colleges administration and associated staff have often grown at double or triple rate of faculty or student body), and (2) the "arms race" in campus "life" and facilities. Colleges now try to sell prospective students on the cool high-tech new dorm, with the gourmet dining option and the expanded gym next door with an Olympic swimming pool and climbing gym or whatever. I exaggerate only slightly (well, at some places, not at all). Buildings are expensive to build and maintain, along with the required staff. There's other stuff too, but these are some of the huge monetary sinkholes in higher ed these days.

(Full disclosure: I've taught at the college level, so I'm pretty familiar with the budgets.)

Slashdot Top Deals

If you would know the value of money, go try to borrow some. -- Ben Franklin

Working...