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


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:chip on your shoulder (Score 1) 250

We seem to have made it through 240-something years as a nation without bathroom laws, I don't think the world is going to end now. Nobody seems to be beating anybody up in bathrooms for being trannies and no trannies seem to be bothering other people in the bathrooms. Let people sort it out on their own...just go to the room that causes the least fuss and nobody will notice or care. Just don't fuck with people when they're shitting. It is an issue for people to work out on their own, in their own communities, and does not require national debate or the intervention of the federal government.

Comment Re:Silly.... (Score 1) 250

pissed off some of their largest customers.

Did it, though? I mean, do you really think some ad weenie at AT&T happened upon one of their ads played over a racist video and said "Oh no, this terrible, I must alert the management so they can take a moral stance on this issue!" No, of course not. This is political faction A trying to hurt political faction B by attacking their funding.

Comment Re:Loss of control (Score 1) 250

What they care about is not being associated in the public mind with such socially unacceptable content

Except nobody knows or cares about it without these stories. Unless you're watching socially unacceptable content, you don't know what products are being advertised during the socially unacceptable content. And if you're watching socially unacceptable content, you probably like it, and aren't bothered by an advertiser "supporting" the socially unacceptable content. And if you've got two brain cells to rub together, you understand that in YouTube's advertising model the advertiser is not choosing specifically who they're supporting and not supporting, so the association is incidental.

It really has nothing to do with the advertiser or their image, and is just a pretense for political faction A to harm political faction B by attacking their funding.

Comment Re:chip on your shoulder (Score 1) 250

America also seems to have an obsession with toilet habits, particularly those of transgender people.

You need to stop watching American news media and think it is at all indicative of the opinions or concerns of the American people. The vast majority of regular people do not give a shit one way or the other about tranny bathrooms.

Comment Re:It's rock and hard place time for youtube (Score 1) 250

who don't want to be in an environment where they are constantly affronted by the depravities of deranged fools.

Are they though? If you don't want to see racist videos, don't watch racist videos. I could see the problem if ads for racist/offensive/terrorist things were popping up during the playback of non-offensive content, but who exactly is getting offended here? Somebody watching a video game review or cat videos isn't getting ads for Nazi Youth Camp or ISIS recruiting. And if ads for AT&T are showing up during "12 Reasons Hitler Did Nothing Wrong (#6 will shock Jews)" so what? Nazis need cell phones too. And unless you're watching those videos, you have no idea any of this is going on.

No one is being "constantly affronted by the depravities of deranged fools." What we have is one political faction trying to silence another by declaring it "offensive" and attacking its source of funding by going after advertisers. Now the censors at Google can go wild banning their political opponents under the guise of fiscal responsibility.

Comment Re:Rotten Tomatoes is getting self-important (Score 1) 384

Well, the other big problem with the Batman and Superman characters in that movie was all the murder. Snyder really gets why people like Batman...the way he indiscriminately murders all the criminals, and same as in Man of Steel, the way in which Superman gives absolutely zero fucks about murdering lots of people while pursuing his own political agenda. Lots and lots of murder.

I think Zack Snyder is some kind of sociopath. He made 300, and Watchmen, and those were great. Looked amazing. Probably because they were based on graphic novels and so all he had to do was follow the storyboard frame for frame, and he knows how to put together a scene. But then I saw "Sucker Punch" thinking "Oh, it's a Zack Snyder movie, this should be great!" And it turns out Snyder's idea of men and women is that all men are horrific rapists and that "strong women" are...delusional whores who use their sex holes to murder them or something? It was awful. After that my friends banned me from choosing the film on movie night.

And then Man of Steel and BvS, with Superman murdering everyone and not giving a shit about any of the innocent people getting hurt. If you give Snyder a storyboard with real characters already in them he'll make an amazing looking movie, but if he actually has to understand how people think and interact...no .There's something wrong with Snyder.

Comment Re: Poor business (Score 2) 384

The guy said: "I’ve seen some great movies with really abysmal Rotten Tomatoes scores,” I'll ask you since I can't ask him. Like what? What low scoring movies (and we're talking below 30% on RT) did you actually like?

Yes, I would also like to know what...fucking Brett Ratner...thinks is "underrated." Besides his own studio trash. Sure, there are movies that are "so bad they're good" but those are rare, and they deserve their bad ratings. They're just entertaining despite being so poorly rated. So I don't want to hear from Brett about the camp movies that score a 5% but are really entertaining because holy shit I can't believe anyone made this, I want to know what scored a 20% that he thinks really should be up in the 80s.

Comment Re:The American obsession with self-reliance (Score 1) 470

But in this context OP was selling socialism as a cure for the problem of Americans scrounging for $5. We're not talking about social services here. How are social services going to solve the problem of people busting ass for $5?

Your point would be valid if the topic were, say, Americans having shitty health care and so you want government to provide some of those services. But when the problem is "Americans don't have jobs so some are sucking dick for $5" and you say "time for socialism!" you're not talking "single-payer health care" socialism but "workers of the world unite" socialism, so my criticism is valid.

Slashdot Top Deals

When you make your mark in the world, watch out for guys with erasers. -- The Wall Street Journal