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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Sites with working takedown aren't "infringing" (Score 2) 57

If they REALLY went after copyright infringing websites they'd take down [the major social media sites]

Websites that have a takedown policy and enforce it are not "copyright infringing websites" per the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act of 1998, codified as 17 USC 512.

Comment Re:I'm not surprised. (Score 2) 419

So you want to ban any kind of sexual advances?

From a superior to a subordinate? Absolutely. But the rule for harassment is that if it's unwanted, it's harassment. If you're not absolutely sure that it's desired, don't do it. Sex with coworkers is usually a bad idea anyway, because even after you stop, you still have to work together. Sure, some people are mature enough to handle situations like that. Unfortunately, there's no reliable way to identify them ahead of time. That's how you can get an astronaut in a diaper.

The second problem obviously was that it wasn't his first encounter like that, but one does have to ask whether his other encounters were with his subordinates as well, or whether it was simply with other coworkers (which is okay).

It's not automagically okay. There's lots of ways in which it can be inappropriate. If your first advance is not welcomed, then you should stop immediately. This is not that complicated, but a lot of people want to make it complicated to excuse some shit behavior that is creating hostile work environments all over the world, let alone the country.

Comment Re: Jacobin Jeopardy (Score 1) 419

I know, right? Communism never led to any abuses ever!

Communism has never been faithfully attempted at scale. It has always been a cynical ploy to fool the populace while the rich stayed rich. (Sometimes they are killed and their wealth absorbed by other rich people, but the wealth doesn't make it into the hands of the people.)

Neither did theocracies, anarchy, or monarchies!

I didn't say any of those things were good, did I?

Comment Re: Not that easy (Score 1) 76

I always thought it was odd they relied on the client to determine whether the bullet would hit.

They don't. But they rely on the client to determine whether or not the players can see one another. If you tamper with the client then you can get more information than you're supposed to have.

It ought to be easy to find the wall hacks from a tape of the game though.

It seems to me like there ought to be a log of every shot in the game; timestamp, initiating actor, a list of who took damage and how much they took and whether it was direct or splash damage, and the positions and facing of all the relevant actors. Ideally you would actually log literally everything for later replay, every single event. Now that would be professional.

Comment Re:Cheating at Tournaments (Score 1) 76

A hundred years ago people were saying the exact same thing about people playing just a 'game' aka football.

Some of us are saying the same thing about it now. It's understandable why this has happened:propaganda works, which is why advertising exists — and professional sports exists as an advertising substrate. Look at who's applying the majority of the money.

There isn't much difference betweeen regular sports, chess, and computer games.

Sure there is. There's loads of differences. Granted, some computer games are just like chess, and some computer games are sort of like sports, albeit only the ones which involve moving your body more than wiggling your thumbs and fingertips. But as a whole, each of these things are very different.

Comment Re:Caring (Score 1) 76

I have no right then to rob then bank if because they ignored me. It is still illegal regardless of how cool you think it is.

Yes, that would be illegal. And what he is actually doing is also illegal. He's not taking anything from the bank. What he's doing is equivalent to breaking into the bank vault, which is visible from the bank floor for the purposes of this simile, and shouting at the customers about how shit the bank security is to the point that they can't talk to the tellers and actually conduct any business. It's trespassing, it's harassment, it's denial of service, but it is not theft. This is basically the copyright infringement vs. theft argument all over again. Just like that argument, we know it is different because there are whole bodies of law which apply specifically to what he is actually doing. If everything you didn't like were theft, we would only need laws about theft. That's not how the world works, so please, stop shouting theft.

Comment Re:I'm not surprised. (Score 4, Interesting) 419

If hitting on a coworker were illegal sexism, a good part of the slashdot audience wouldn't be here, because their parents never would have hooked up.

It's not appropriate for someone to send messages like this to a subordinate, period, the end. It creates a hostile work environment because they have to worry about whether they'll be penalized for saying no.

The appropriate response to someone walking in with a fistful of evidence that someone is engaging in sexual harassment is to fire the harasser, immediately. This is especially true anywhere that has had sexual harassment training. And basically all tech companies are doing that now, and this sort of thing is evidence that it is necessary; both the event, and all the jerkoffs scrambling to defend what is clearly unacceptable behavior.

Uber has a rule against sex between drivers and riders, no matter what. I guarantee you that their employee code of conduct bans sexual harassment, and clear sexual advances like these without invitation are a clear case of sexual harassment.

Finally, it wasn't actually his first offense, that was just a lie told by HR. Because HR is not your friend. Get that part straight right now. They work for the company and their job is to smooth the rough, pacify the angry, and meet legal requirements. It is not to help you.

Comment Re:Jacobin Jeopardy (Score 1) 419

What is, "capitalism"?

It really does boggle my mind that people haven't figured out that the whole system of capitalism might as well be designed to create opportunities for abuse. Since we have reason to believe that human nature hasn't changed appreciably throughout history — the more we look, the more ways we find in which we're similar to other primates, let alone humans of old — we know these opportunities will be taken.

The dictionary definition is that capital controls the means of production. That always used to come down to human hands, which meant people controlled by money. Now it's going to mean cogs and gears, and they're going to work for the people who are already wealthy. What will they choose to grind out? I guarantee it won't be sunshine and happiness for all mankind.

Comment Re:No feel (Score 1) 78

Today, well trained humans are far better at this than well trained AI using far superior, often almost cheating, sensing technologies.

But there is no cheating! They simply can have more senses than we can... as many as you can cram onto the car, along with enough hardware to make sense of the input. That's why they will be better than we are at driving cars. They can see things we can't. A sufficiently expensive and complicated laser system can not only tell that there's liquid on the track, but what it is, even if the sunlight is shining off of it. For example, in this press release they talk about identification of hydrocarbons at forty meters. Let's say they can only do it at twenty. That's still plenty of time to identify an oil slick and make decisions about it.

Today, you can get superior results having a human handle the whole vehicle as compared to having a computer handle the whole vehicle. You could have 0 computers on the car and still do better. But those days are numbered, and I suspect the number is relatively small.

Comment Re:No feel (Score 2) 78

But really it impresses me more to think that these days you can just slam your foot on the brake and maintain vehicle control far better than any expert driver on a pre-determined track paying 100% attention ever could.

Indeed. The most modern ABS can even detect when the vehicle is on a loose surface, and lock up the brakes for a moment intentionally to e.g. build up a pile of snow in front of the wheel to offer something to stop against. And traction control can be tuned to permit specified amounts of wheel slip (and differing amounts at different speeds!) so as to preserve sporty feel or to permit a limited amount of digging into the terrain so as to provide traction by removing the loose top material. Ascent control, descent control, automated rock climbing... the things that can be done even with vehicles with internal combustion engines are astounding. When it finally becomes the common practice to connect a motor to each wheel of an automobile, things are really going to be amazing, because they can respond so much more quickly. It takes about 15ms to open or close the spool valve in a modern ABS control unit. But you can change the output to a three phase motor damned near as quickly as you can read the optical encoder that tells you what position it's in. It also brings a previously unseen level of redundancy to the automobile which should pay massive dividends in reliability.

Comment Re:@Intel: Why no ECC for consumer-grade processor (Score 1) 224

Compare it to early cars, where every operator had to know a bunch of stuff about it just to keep it running, but it was simple enough that the average operator could learn that stuff.

Are you really going back to early cars here? I mean, I think we can break it into basically three eras. The early age of cars was characterized by horseless carriages. The prior age of cars was ushered in around the 1930s or 1940s, where automatic transmissions appeared, the control layout became standard, and vehicles were pretty much all fully enclosed unless they were specifically designed to be a cabriolet. And the modern age of cars came with the O2 sensor, and self-tuning.

For the earliest cars, it was common to hire a driver and mechanic, because keeping the car moving was a full-time job. Maybe halfway through the period it became reasonable for people to maintain their own vehicles, as the reliability came up to the level where you didn't have to be an engineer to keep it going.

Obviously, the middle era was the time when any schmoe with a set of wrenches could fix a car. There was very limited availability of fluids, so vehicles were engineered to use what was ubiquitous, which was all the same. Vehicles were easy to maintain because they wasted a lot of space. On the other hand, reliability was nowhere.

Most modern cars are staggeringly reliable, but maintenance is a mixed bag. Oil changes tend to remain trivial, but transmission oil changes may be a massive PITA. You have to get the car flat and level and add fluid from the bottom while running on a disturbing percentage of modern vehicles, and there is no dipstick. A radiator flush is exactly as hard as it ever was, and you install a flush tee the same as ever. The battery, on the other hand, might be in the wheel well behind the plastic inner fender. Even if it's someplace supposedly convenient like the trunk, it might be a PITA to get in and out as it is in my A8. And you have to jump start from the battery, too. There's no redundant terminal under the hood. That would have just added weight and crap so they skipped it. The starter takes power from beneath the frame rail on the right side, you can apply power there if you have to but again, what a PITA. On the other hand, even reasonable estimates of the service intervals are all much longer than cars from the prior era. And on the gripping hand, nobody is meant to own cars like that for more than half a decade or so. They are for rich fucks who can afford to turn them over :)

Comment Re:Hypocrisy on both sides (Score 1) 204

without paying the creators whatever they want

how much does the Shakespeare estate deserve

I think his copyright expired around 400 years ago.

I am aware of that under current law. But "whatever they want" appears to be no expiration.

On the other hand, why does copyright expire at all? Why does, say, the U.S. Constitution even have a "limited Times" clause?

Slashdot Top Deals

The reason why worry kills more people than work is that more people worry than work.

Working...