Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:It's Sony - duh (Score 2) 444

Intellectual Property is a thing in order to allow companies to own ideas without explicitly owning ideas (forbidden by copyright law).

I don't see how your conclusion follows from your argument. Yes, doing something illegal can count as infringement even if nothing has been stolen or removed. What does that have to do with property? Not all crimes are property-related.

Comment Re:social experiments (Score 1) 317

The success rate is 85% after ten years and then decreasing slowly by about 3% per year. So for a 50 year old who got vasectomy at age of 20 it is still around 50%.

Can you cite this? Looking around for statistics it seems that my doctor may have been exaggerating a little, but I can find no figures higher than 30-40% after ten years. Regardless of those figures, the point that my doctor was making, namely that a vasectomy is a permanent decision, remains valid: even if the chance is "only" 15% that you'll never be able to have children, a vasectomy can't be looked at as a temporary means of birth control.

And getting back to the point of the discussion, even with a vasectomy the chances of pregnancy are not zero. The claim that you made was something along the lines of men being able to influence pregnancy to the same degree that women can, and the idea that you would need surgery to achieve anywhere near the reliability that a woman can get with a birth control pill, and still not the kind of certainty that a woman can get with an abortion, makes that idea pretty absurd. Even if it were true that there was some vasectomy procedure which was 100% reversible.

Regarding your experience with condoms: everyone's different, so I'm obliged to believe you when you say that you experience no change when using condoms. The change is so large for me, however, that it's difficult for me to believe you as I am obligated to do. I'm tempted to think that you might just be misremembering the experience.

Comment Re:social experiments (Score 1) 317

Reversing a vasectomy is not a minor procedure and is not covered by most health care plans in the US. As such, it costs $10,000 or so according to my doctor. I discussed this with him at length at one point. And no, reversing a vasectomy only has a 85% success rate if you do it within the first year after you got it. The likelihood of success decreases over time until, after about ten years, it's basically zero.

I'm not sure what you mean by "new vasectomy ways" but I suspect that you mean vas clamps. I asked about those as well, there's a rumor that those are reversible since you can just take them off, but no: apparently having the clamps on damages the vas deferens over time, so the probability of reversing that is not much higher than with a regular vasectomy.

And this: "condomes don't change the feeling" is just wildly untrue. I don't know, experiences may vary, but my own experience is that there's a very dramatic difference and I've tried plenty of different types and styles and sizes of condom. Huge difference.

Comment Re:The FBI let it lapse? (Score 1) 70

Uh huh. Maybe you also made the mistake of judging without reading the article, but this is the second time in a row that the FBI has done this - the domain lapsed last year as well. Yes it's always possible that there's some incredibly convoluted conspiracy afoot, but it's far more likely that whoever's in charge of handling their evidence just isn't equipped for this kind of stuff and doesn't know what they're doing.

Comment Re:social experiments (Score 1) 317

Aw, you're just trolling. Yes men can use condoms but we all know that those suck, both for reliability and for the act itself. Meanwhile, a vasectomy is permanent and "the new drugs" (I assume you're talking about RISUG) don't exist yet. Saying... actually, I had read that as "Men have as much say as women." and was trying to call you out on that as being baloney. But you actually said, "Men have as much to say as women." which is certainly true, I guess. Men do like to talk. ... Neither one of those statements make sense in context.

Comment Re:Think it through. (Score 3, Insightful) 303

Okay, I usually don't respond to the posts that are flagrantly insulting, but I'm going to make an effort here to respond in kind. Bear with me.

You idiot, they didn't "release information about a gay Saudi", they published more than half a million Saudi diplomatic cables which contained, among many many other things, the fact that this one guy had been arrested for homosexuality. Wikileaks is not a revenge site, where people like you go to post the private information of a girlfriend who dumped you when she found you had skidmarks larger than your dick. Wikileaks is a place where whistle blowers go to publish some of the secrets that very large organizations, mainly governments, hide from those people whom these secrets effect.

It is true that smarter people than you have criticized this approach to journalism, and those people may have a point: huge amounts of documents like this can not be censored for potentially harmful or embarrassing personal information prior to their release. Even if they could be, Wikileaks might not be willing to do so - they have built their reputation on total transparency, with the understanding that only when you receive a whole document, without redaction, can you be certain of its contents. Much as Hillary Clinton has received a lot of criticism for self-censoring emails from her server, so does Wikileaks avoid that criticism by censoring nothing.

(Now would be a good time to pause for a moment and make sure that your drool is not getting on your keyboard while you read this. Consider a bib.)

But, as I said, there are people who are not idiots who have pointed out problems with this approach. Most of those criticisms have taken the form of the TFA: when the US diplomatic cables were released there was much hand-wringing about all the lives that they would cost when sources were revealed. That didn't happen, but it was the same argument then as now: such a huge number of documents are bound to include a few embarrassing or possibly even dangerous tidbits about individuals. Some of those people went on to make the same implied argument as in TFA, "If we don't keep secrets, someone might get hurt." though previously they were less stupid about it than trying to suggest that if someone found out that a man had been arrested for homosexuality he might be... arrested for homosexuality. I don't know about Saudi Arabia specifically, but in most places arrest records are public information. (Was this written by someone you know? They seem to be writing at your level.)

Regarding my opinion about all of this: I'm uncertain about what's best for the public good, but if Wikileaks maintains an unflinching absolutism it's bound to get them in trouble eventually. I don't think that the TFA's method of cherry-picking a tiny tidbit out of a huge stack of information and shouting, "Look how much damage Wikileaks is doing!" is acting in the public's favor though. In fact, I think that sort of misinformation is very much against the best interests of the public.

I might further make a distinction between private information, personal records, and secrets, but any kind of subtlety like that would be lost on you, I'm sure. So I'm going to stop there.

Comment Re:Think it through. (Score 1) 303

Yeah, this really seems like they're stretching for something to criticize Wikileaks over. Or, maybe more accurately: they're looking for something to criticize Wikileaks' methods over. This stuff feels like they're trying to promote the position that having secrets is good, rather than trying to discredit Wikileaks specifically.

Comment Re:Oops. (Score 1) 103

HW Statistics is only part of what Unity collects. There was a question about this in the Unity forums at one point (now missing...) and a Unity rep said specifically that the only way to avoid collecting data on end users was to use an older version of Unity. They didn't specify how old, but the person had asked about 4.7.2 and the rep said something like, "Definitely older than that."

I wish I could find that post, but they've shuffled around the forums and I guess it was in one of the ones that they removed.

Comment Re:Oops. (Score 1) 103

You're certainly correct, but I find this case to be particularly egregious for the reason that it steps in-between the developer and the customer. And yes, you might point out again that everyone wants to be a middle man as well, from Apple to Google to Valve, that direct producer-customer relationship has been eaten away at. Everyone wants a piece of what other people are making.

It feels like a new thing though, another step that hasn't yet been taken, when even the tools that I use to make a thing are claiming a stake in the product, and dictating to me what my relationship with my customers will be.

Comment Re:Oops. (Score 4, Informative) 103

Ugh, I'm blowing mods to post this but it has to be known more broadly: Unity is already spyware and has been for a while. Analytics is integrated into the editor, and while it used to be opt-out ever since Unity 5.0 it's been impossible for free users to disable. (Pro users still? have that option) Additionally, any games that you make with Unity also spy on your customers, even if you don't include Unity analytics or Unity ads. Naturally, if you do include those things your games will collect even more information, and Unity will graciously share some of that information with you, but it's not possible to make a spyware-free game with Unity.

In that respect, this seems like a savvy pairing between companies.

Slashdot Top Deals

Happiness is twin floppies.