×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Washington Dancers Sue To Prevent Identity Disclosure

Alsee My FOI request (461 comments)

Please send me the full names, addresses, photos and dates of birth of all strippers in my state.

P.S.
If you'd like to conserve paper you can just send the photos.

-

about a month and a half ago
top

Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Alsee Re:These laws are hard to grasp (475 comments)

There are clear indications that traditional porn serves as cathartic material and reduces the number of instances of rape and other acts inspired by sexual frustration. The same does not seem to hold for child pornography, where the opposite seems to be the case

When you say "seems" are you to referring to anecdotal comments rather than research?

For an earlier comment here I did a Google Scholar search on the rate of sex-crimes before and after countries changed pornography laws, and some of those studies included changes in the legality of child pornography. It seems that every scientific study found the same result - countries where child pornography became legal experiences a decrease in rates of child molestation, countries where child pornography became illegal experienced an increase in rates of child molestation.

-

about 2 months ago
top

Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Alsee Re:Thought policing (475 comments)

Why does that child have a tube up his butt?

-

about 2 months ago
top

Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Alsee Re:Distasteful stuff, but should not be illegal (475 comments)

The easiest way to tell might be to compare cultures where normal pornography is easy to get, to those where it is very difficult to get, and see if the rates of sexual attacks and deviant acts vary between the cultures. Does anyone know if such a study has been done?

Comparing different cultures with each other doesn't work, you can't determine weather differences are due to the availability of pornography or to a wide range of other cultural factors.

What you do is compare a single culture with itself, before and after a major change in the availability and content-range of porn. In fact a substantial number of such studies have been done, across a substantial number of countries. The results are consistent. Increases in the availability and content-range of pornography are generally followed by a decrease in rape and other sex crimes, or at worst no change in those rates. This result also extends to a smaller number of country-cases that included child pornography becoming legal. In every such case rape, other sex crimes, and child molestation always decreased. Countries where child pornography changed from legal-to-illegal had increases in child molestation rates.

A Google Scholar search can turn up a variety of such studies. Here are links to one two of them.

Abstract one:
The Danish liberalization of legal prosecution and of laws concerning pornography and the ensuing high availability of such materials present a unique opportunity of testing hypotheses concerning the relationship between pornography and sex offenses. It is shown that concurrently with the increasing availability of pornography there was a significant decrease in the number of sex offenses registered by the police in Copenhagen. On the basis of various investigations, including a survey of public attitudes and studies of the police, it was established that at least in one type of offense (child molestation) the decrease represents a real reduction in the number of offenses committed. Various factors suggest that the availability of pornography was the direct cause of this decrease.

Abstract two:
Pornography continues to be a contentious matter with those on the one side arguing it detrimental to society while others argue it is pleasurable to many and a feature of free speech. The advent of the Internet with the ready availability of sexually explicit materials thereon particularly has seemed to raise questions of its influence. Following the effects of a new law in the Czech Republic that allowed pornography to a society previously having forbidden it allowed us to monitor the change in sex related crime that followed the change. As found in all other countries in which the phenomenon has been studied, rape and other sex crimes did not increase. Of particular note is that this country, like Denmark and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse.

I wonder what the world would look like if we had legislators who legislated on the basis of evidence and reality rather than ideologies and soundbites.

-

about 2 months ago
top

Python-LMDB In a High-Performance Environment

Alsee Re:Deletionists (98 comments)

Sure sure, verifiable is important. But even with something to verify the information on the page, you still get those deletionists that will claim notability, and fast-track the page for deletion.

If you were paying attention, I explained exactly how to prevent an article from being deleted. Include a couple of independent Reliable Sources talking about the topic, saying things that can be used to build an article. Once you have that then primary sources can help expand the article if used properly, but we have rules against articles built solely with primary sources because primary-source-only articles raise a shitton of problems.

But no, you're high and mighty and you just don't give a fuck about how many pokemon there are.

What the hell are you ranting about? Not only does Wikipedia have an article on Pokemon, we've got literally hundreds of Pokemon articles. That includes a list of SEVEN HUNDRED AND NINETEEN pokemon running up to Number 719: Diancie.

Hey man, you want to trim down Wikipedia of random meaningless shit nobody cares about? Try taking on football.

I would personally be delighted if the world got over it's nutty fascination with football. However the fact is that the world does treat football as important, and there does exist an crazy amount of Published sources Taking Note of every minute facet of football. As a Wikipedia Editor I accept it's not my place to delete other people's football contributions based on my opinion of football's level of "importance". If someone complies with Wikipedia policies, if their article satisfies sourcing requirements etc., then I'll either leave the article alone or I'll work to improve it. Hell, some of my most resent edits were fixes to professional Wrestling articles, which I consider about 42 level lower than football in stupidity. Football is a genuine idiotic violent sport, Wrestling is a fake idiotic violent sport. ~~~~

-

about 2 months ago
top

Python-LMDB In a High-Performance Environment

Alsee Re:(not)perplexingly (98 comments)

You mixed up the policies. No Original Research is unrelated to why Bjork's Academy Awards dress has it's own Wikipedia article. No Original Research is why the article doesn't contain any new ideas or opinions by the article-writers themselves. The article accurately describes what The World has to say about the dress. The article has 13 sources cited 18 times providing external documentation for almost every sentence in the article.

The policy you wanted was "Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to decide how 'important' a topic is... Wikipedia Notability means that multiple independent Reliable Sources have published significant discussion of the subject." The World decides what is and isn't Notable, not me. As a Wikipedia editor I'm not allowed the opinion that it's embarrassment to humanity that Academy-Awards-Dresses are considered newsworthy. (I can have the opinion, but I can't delete the article based on my opinion.)

The sources include: telegraph.co.uk, shine.yahoo.com, Filmology: A Movie-a-Day Guide to the Movies You Need to Know ISBN 978-1-4405-0753-3, All about Oscar: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards ISBN 978-0-8264-1452-6, Vanity Fair magazine, Spin magazine, New York magazine, Reel Winners: Movie Award Trivia ISBN 978-1-55002-574-3, BjÃrk: wow and flutter ISBN 978-1-55022-556-3, The Advocate magazine, today.msnbc.msn.com. And there is no doubt that there are countless other uncited sources that exist. The World has clearly decided that this topic is worthy of significant published coverage.

By the way, this particular article has been getting around 55 pageviews a day. That's a lot higher than many of our more serious minor topics. Apparently there are a fair number of people coming to Wikipedia searching for this article.

-

about 2 months ago
top

Python-LMDB In a High-Performance Environment

Alsee Re:Deletionists (98 comments)

The "worldview" is that Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia. Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit, not a public blog-space. The only thing that prevents Wikipedia from becoming a scribble-board are the Wikipedia Policies, and editor dedication to those policies. If you throw out Wikipedia content-verifiability policies then it would start looking a lot less like an Encyclopedia.

I don't think these people understand how search works.

How search works: If you type a search term into Google you'll get random writings about the topic, no matter how trivial. If you type a search term into Wikipedia you'll get an encyclopedia-style article with Verifiable information cited to independent Reliable Sources, if we have one. ~~~~

-

about 2 months ago
top

Python-LMDB In a High-Performance Environment

Alsee Re:Wikipedia article deleted (98 comments)

<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines</ref>

-

about 2 months ago
top

Python-LMDB In a High-Performance Environment

Alsee Re:I can't wait for it (98 comments)

I was involved in a example of this recently. TheFederalist.com is a one-year-old rightwing website. They ran an attack piece on Neil degrasse Tyson. It was picked up by the rightwing blogosphere, but was totally non-newsworthy (as established by the lack of news coverage). Someone tried to insert it into Wikipedia's biographical page on Neil degrasse Tyson. That edit was promptly reverted because Wikipedia has a policy of being extremely cautious about adding negative material to the Biography of Living Persons. A blogosphere rant against someone doesn't qualify. So then TheFederalist.com writer started screaming CENSORSHIP and equating Wikipedia editors to religious fundamentalist terrorists for not writing his hit-job into Tyson's biography. *THIS* picked up some minor coverage for the story from other sources.

At this point someone noticed that we had an tiny article page on TheFederalist.com, and the only sourcing for that article was TheFederalist itself and a blog page from MediaMatters. The TheFederalist page was nominated for deletion. A massive effort was made by many people trying to find an sources talking about TheFederalist.com, searching for any sources we could use to fix the article. The search turned up squat. Then TheFederalist.com wrote about Wikipedia nominating their article for deletion, and *THAT* got picked up by a few sources. And *THOSE* stories gave us enough information about TheFederalist.com in order to write a an article on it.

So yeah..... it was painfully circular. ~~~~

-

about 2 months ago
top

Python-LMDB In a High-Performance Environment

Alsee Re:(not)perplexingly (98 comments)

Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to have opinions about a topic. The Neutral Point of View policy mandates that edits be deleted or re-written to present a reasonably neutral description of a topic. (And if needed, a neutral description of the sides in a controversial topic.)

Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to "know stuff" about a topic. The No Original Research policy mandates that facts and information must be Verifiable in published Reliable Sources. The sources need to exist, even if they aren't cited. Any information which is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, can be removed or tagged with {{citation needed}}.

Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to decide how "important" a topic is. This one causes the most confusion. Wikipedia's has a specific and somewhat unusual definition of Notability. Wikipedia Notability means that multiple independent Reliable Sources have published significant discussion of the subject. A musician who barely shows up at the #100 slot on a Billboard-top-100 list is Notable because The Wold has created the Billboard top-100 list to Take Note of musicians, and because a few paragraphs about the musician here and there in magazines give us Verifiable information from which to build an article. A Youtuber with more fans than the musician isn't Notable because (generally) books and magazines and the news don't publish any discussion of popular Youtubers. That means we have no independent sources from which to build an article.

So.... the reason this article was deleted rather than tagged "needs more verifiable sources" was that the number of independent usable sources was ZERO when it was nominated for deletion, and because everyone who participated in the deletion discussion did a search for more sources and came up with ZERO.

You can't built a valid Wikipedia article without verifiable sources, and you can't fix a broken article by adding sources to when the sources don't exist.

People can't write Wikipedia articles about themselves saying how awesome they are, or their company, or their pet project. (Well, they can write the article, but it will be deleted if it doesn't cite multiple independent published Reliable Sources discussing the subject).

It doesn't matter how awesome someone thinks their Python-LMDB project is. It doesn't matter how important someone thinks their Python-LMDB project is. If there's no magazines or books or news talking about it, then it's a dead-duck under Wikipedia Notability policy. We can't build an article based on just their own promotional materials, and editors can't just claim "personal knowledge" to make up stuff to write an article.

And no, this lame Slashdot story won't change that. ~~~~

-

about 2 months ago
top

Microsoft Develops Analog Keyboard For Wearables, Solves Small Display Dilemma

Alsee Re:1984 Called (100 comments)

You might want to check the moderation on the post you replied to, chuckle.

about 2 months ago
top

Microsoft Develops Analog Keyboard For Wearables, Solves Small Display Dilemma

Alsee Re:1984 Called (100 comments)

Your link is for a 30 year old watch with a touch screen that lets you enter numbers and symbols.
This story is a new invention watch with a touch screen that lets you enter numbers and symbols and letters.

That's why Microsoft deserves a patent on it.

-

about 2 months ago
top

Tetris To Be Made Into a Live Action Film

Alsee Coming soon to a theater near you! (137 comments)

Pong: The future is in your hands.
A cross genre action-scifi-romcom with human drama and real meaning.

-

about 3 months ago
top

How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Alsee Re:The whole article is just trolling (795 comments)

You are suggesting that every single one of a multitude of completely independent temperature records are all wrong. You are trying to dismiss them on the irrational basis that they all point in the same direction by slightly different amounts.

Furthermore you are assuming that every single one of a multitude of completely independent temperature records are all wrong in the same direction, imposing your pre-determined bias upon them.

You are baselessly filtering out any satellite data that doesn't fit the story you want to hear.

You are baselessly filtering out ocean temperatures, which account for 90% of climate heating, because it doesn't fit the story you want to hear.

You are engaging in wild conspiracy-theoryism claiming (or implying) that some hundredthousand scientists are ALL too stupid to account for novice-level obvious measurement difficulties, or that they are ALL conspiring to deliberately lie.

And most of all you're denying THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.
CO2 lets sunlight in and blocks the escape of thermal radiation. There is no possible dispute there. End of argument. The science is utterly and unarguably settled. All that's left at that point is determining the size of the effect.

It's astounding that it somehow doesn't make it into your conscious awareness that you are baselessly ignoring anything and everything that doesn't fit the story you want to hear.

-

about 3 months ago
top

How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Alsee Re:The whole article is just trolling (795 comments)

Here are ALL TEN global data sets included in one graph. Every single one shows warming. Can you seriously look at that and still claim no warming over the last 18 years?

-

about 3 months ago
top

Infinite Crisis' Superhero Origins Story

Alsee Whine whine (50 comments)

Whine whine... the people complaining this character or that character is overpowered. Quit whining that everything has to be NERFED just because you suck and you lost the battle. The Superman character comes with a sysop root account on the game server. So what? Deal with it and quit whining.

-

about 3 months ago
top

How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Alsee Re:The whole article is just trolling (795 comments)

https://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.cfm
Is that the statement you were referring to?

Correct. They adopted that statement (or a substantially equivalent statement) back in 2007.

Prior to that, they had a denialism statement. As I said, American Petroleum Geologists were the last scientific body of national or international standing to offer any hint of support to climate denialism.

There are many scientific bodies in unrelated fields that have never commented on the subject. There's the American Petroleum Geologists and perhaps some others with statements that carefully dodge having a position, but there's not one scientific body of national or international standing opposed to the effectively unanimous agreement by climate scientists that Global Warming is real and that it is directly a result of CO2 and other man-made causes.

-

about 3 months ago
top

How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Alsee Re:The whole article is just trolling (795 comments)

Let me help you with that.
Here is the graph you're looking for, showing continuous cooling trends from 1965 to 2013.5

The bottomline is there has been no warming statistically different from natural variation for at least 18 years

The bottom line is that you have given absolutely no rational reason for ignoring vast bodies of data proving your assertion is false.

You eagerly embrace the RSS graph for the sole reason that, on this arbitrarily selected time interval, it happens to give a linear trend line with a small enough warming to dismiss as negligible.

I asked if you had an rational reason from selecting the RSS data set, and you had none. I asked what you would do if I selected a different time interval, one where RSS showed warming and UAH didn't. You did not deny that you would have irrationally reject the RSS dataset and irrationally latched onto the UAH set.

You are flatly ignoring a MULTITUDE of global surface data sets showing the earth has in fact warmed over the last 18 years.

You have flatly ignored the ocean data set, a data set which you have not contested carries 45 times more weight than any atmospheric data. A data set which reflects 90% of the climate warming as opposed to the 2% warming that happens in the atmosphere. A data set which shows a perfectly steady warming rate for many decades. A data set which shows there has been absolutely zero slowdown in warming over the last 18 years.

You ignored virtually the entirety of data. You latched onto one cherrypicked fragment that most nearly fit what you wanted to find, tailored to this utterly arbitrary 18 year example. You have given no rational reason for latching onto this cherrypicked datapoint.

Can you really not see that this is a textbook case of Confirmation bias?

Can you really not see that what you have just done is exactly what I did in the 1965-2013.5 graph I linked above?

-

about 3 months ago
top

How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Alsee Re:The whole article is just trolling (795 comments)

I prefer Satellite Data

UAH NSSTC lower tropical global mean is also Satellite data.
Can you give me any reason..... can you give yourself any reason... why you ignored one set of satellite data and embraced another set of satellite data? Note that this is a past-tense question. If you research the UAH NSSTC satellite data and the RSS MSU satellite data, you'll find that they are substantially comparable satellites, and that they face substantially equal equal difficulties measuring temperature, and substantially equal corrections trying to fix serious problems of long term skew in the data. But for my question here, doing a new look up on the satellites is irrelevant. I'm asking, at the time you picked that ONE dataset out of a long list of data sets, did you have any reason from picking that one, other than the fact that it most nearly fit your prior position?

Satellite Data, it has been "corrected" as much

I assume that was supposed to read "hasn't been corrected as much". Actually they are heavily corrected. Amongst other difficulties, the satellites are in decaying orbits which steadily skews their readings more and more each year. They also have a lot of difficulty separating the signal of lower troposphere warming from the cooling in the stratosphere (itself a central evidence of man-made global warming).

The satellite data is important, but like all methods of global measurements, there are challenges. That is why scientists don't cherry pick one data set, they take a comprehensive look at all data from MULTIPLE satellites and multiple means of ground measurements and from sea measurements and everything else they can get their hands on.

Why did you ignore one satellite over another. Why did you ignore all ground data. Why did you ignore the sea data I linked, especially after I pointed out that atmospheric temperatures only accounted for 2% of global heat being captured and sea temperatures accounted for 90% of the heat being captured.

Is it possible that you dismissed multiple lines of strong evidence because it doesn't fit your prior conclusions on the subject? Is it possible that you eagerly embraced the isolated RSS MSU satellite data set because that graph generated a negligible amount of warming on that exact 18 year time interval?

Question: If I select a different time interval than the last 18 years, and I show you that the RSS MSU satellite (the one you picked) graph shows warming or greater warming compared to the other (UAH NSSTC) satellite, would you ever arbitrarily abandon the RSS satellite data and arbitrarily embrace the UAH satellite, merely because it better fits the prior argument you wanted to make? Is that a reasonable, objective, unbiased evaluation of all available evidence?

-

about 3 months ago
top

How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Alsee Re:The whole article is just trolling (795 comments)

The article is kind of dumb.

Ad hominem.

You really shouldn't try to use fancy words you don't understand, trying to look smart. That was not Ad Hominem. That was his opening comment giving his opinion of the article (not the person). He then proceeded to follow up his opening opinion with perfectly valid arguments.

It's some guy who isn't a scientist and who doesn't really understand the scientific method arrogantly bitching about how everybody else doesn't really understand the scientific method.

Appeal to authority (arguing that the "authority" is unimpeachable).

You don't understand Argument From Authority either, nor do you understand when it is a fallacy and when it isn't.

That's the *actual* scientific method.

No-true-Scotsman fallacy.

Not only did you get No True Scotsman wrong, you actually have it backwards. It was the author of the "kind of dumb article" that committed the No True Scotsman fallacy. It was the article author who fallaciously tried to exclude science-he-didn't-like as not being "true science".

Controlled experiment may or may not come into it at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Look at where it says "Testing".

I suggest you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... where it says "Testing": Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars.
Astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, climatologists, and countless other fields of science are testing scientific theories when they engage in measurements and observations of the real world, which test the predictions of those theories.

But I would like to thank you for pointing out that Wikipedia section. I can see how you could read that section and overlook the example illustrating that observations-testing-predictions are a form of scientific experiment. That section should definitely be more clear. I'll leave a comment to that effect on the Talk page. ~~~~

-

about 3 months ago

Submissions

top

German Court Affirms GPL: Source Must Match Executable

Alsee Alsee writes  |  about a year and a half ago

Alsee (515537) writes "Fantec was found to be distributing Linux based media players with an incorrect (older) version of source code. Fantec blamed their Chinese supplier for the problem, but a German Court ruled Fantec was responsible for ensuring their own compliance with the GPL. "According to the court, the company should have checked the completeness of the sources themselves or with the help of experts, even if that would have incurred additional costs." I propose a better solution. If your company is subcontracting software development simply use the supplied source to compile your executable."
top

Own the controversy! Blackbird DDWFTTW up for auction!

Alsee Alsee writes  |  about a year and a half ago

Alsee (515537) writes "Center of flaming controversy across the internet and here on Slashdot for claiming to travel "Directly Downwind Faster Than The Wind, Powered Only By The Wind, Steady State" (DDWFTTW), the Blackbird is now up for auction on Ebay. It has been certified by the North American Land Sailing Association and Guinness World Records to have reached 2.8 times wind speed directly downwind and was subsequently modded to also achieve more than double windspeed directly upwind. It has been the subject of an MIT physics paper and was included as a model problem in the International Physics Olympiad, yet many still argue it would violate the laws of physics. Let the bidding (and debate) commence!"
top

The Federal Trade Commission wants to talk DRM

Alsee Alsee writes  |  more than 5 years ago

Alsee (515537) writes "The Federal Trade Commission and University of Washington School of Law will host a March 25 conference on DRM. The FTC is also accepting your comments. AGENDA: Opening remarks; demonstrations of DRM-related technology; panel discussions regarding burdens on, and benefits for, consumers, and other market and legal issues involving DRM; a review of industry best practices; and consideration of the need for government involvement to better protect consumers."
top

Intel's new Trusted Computing 'goodies'

Alsee Alsee writes  |  more than 6 years ago

Alsee (515537) writes "Intel is releasing their Trusted Computing integrated system of 'goodies', with a new near-magical capability. Intel's vPro will integrate Trusted Execution Technology(TXT) CPUs with the Trusted Platform Module(TPM) to lock the computer's master keys in silicon secure both against thieves and against the owner, Network Admission Control(NAC) to lock infected or non-compliant systems out of the network, a remote kill switch to disable or wipe a system, and now new magic to trigger that remote kill switch even when the computer is switched off: 'Just walk into range of a wireless Internet network and your [powered off] laptop will get the signal to self-destruct.' Yummy!"
top

Dual Boot Not Trusted, Rejected by Vista SP1

Alsee Alsee writes  |  more than 6 years ago

Alsee (515537) writes "Welcome to our first real taste of Trusted Computing: With Vista Enterprise and Vista Ultimate, Service Pack 1 refuses to install on dual boot systems. Trusted Computing is one of the many things that got cut from Vista, but traces of it remain in BitLocker, and that is the problem. The Service Pack patch to your system will invalidate your Trust chain if you are not running the Microsoft-approved Microsoft-trusted boot loader, or if you make other similar unapproved modifications to your system. The Trust chip (the TPM) will then refuse to give you your key to unlock your own hard drive. If you are *not* running BitLocker then a workaround is available: Switch back to Microsoft's Vista-only boot mode, install the Service Pack, then reapply your dual boot loader. If you *are* running BitLocker, or if Microsoft resumes implementing Trusted Computing, then you are S.O.L."
top

Venezuela, Not Denmark, Is Fourth To Appeal OOXML

Alsee Alsee writes  |  more than 6 years ago

Alsee (515537) writes "The recent Slashdot stories (1) (2) reporting Denmark as the fourth nation to appeal OOXML were mistaken. While there have been many many protests against OOXML, the ISO acknowledges four appeals — Brazil, India, South Africa and Venezuela. It appears the letters from Denmark and Norway are being disregarded, as they do not come from the administrative heads of their national organisations."
top

Venezuela, Not Denmark, Is Fourth To Appeal OOXML

Alsee Alsee writes  |  more than 6 years ago

Alsee (515537) writes "The recent report Denmark Becomes Fourth Nation To Protest OOXML is a bit of confusion. There have been many protests, however the IEC acknowledges four appeals- Brazil, India, South Africa and Venezuela. It appears the letters from Denmark and Norway are being disregarded, as they come from the Chairmen of their respective Technical Committees rather than the administrative heads of the national organisations."
top

Play a game, work for Google for free

Alsee Alsee writes  |  more than 6 years ago

Alsee (515537) writes "Google has introduced a new game styled beta, Google Image Labeler.

You'll be randomly paired with a partner who's online and using the feature. Over a two-minute period, you and your partner will:
* View the same set of images.
* Provide as many labels as possible to describe each image you see.
* Receive points when your label matches your partner's label. The number of points will depend on how specific your label is.
* See more images until time runs out.
Google intends to use your word lists to help improve the quality of Google's image search results. The game is actually rather addicting, if you don't mind being hijacked into doing unpaid work for Google."
top

Alsee Alsee writes  |  more than 7 years ago

Alsee (515537) writes "Wired News reports "electronic civil libertarians' hearts a twitter" over US Presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton's bold speech on the subject of digital-era privacy rights in front of the American Constitution Society, arguing privacy an important right. Topics included electronic surveillance, consumer opt-in vs opt-out, cyber-security, commercial and government handling of personal data, data offshoring, data leaks, and even genetic discrimination. Senate.gov has the full text or video(.wmv) of the speech."
top

Alsee Alsee writes  |  more than 7 years ago

Alsee (515537) writes "When the Dell Sells Open Source Computers story ran, a detailed price comparison between the E520 Windows systems and the Windows-free E520n systems appeared to show a nice effective discount for avoiding the Windows tax. No more, Dell's prices have been updated. The base price for the Windows system has dropped by $50 and a $70 anomoly in the E520 monitor options has been fixed. The upshot is that there is approximately $zero effective value in buying a Dell n-series trying to avoid the Windows tax. You are better off buying a Dell with Windows preinstalled and calling in to demand the EULA guaranteed refund for the unused OS."
top

Alsee Alsee writes  |  more than 7 years ago

Alsee (515537) writes "Update to Columbine RPG Kickout Has Repercussions. After being awarded finalist status, Super Columbine Massacre RPG was controversially ejected from the festival. Braid has pulled out in protest. Flow has pulled out in protest. Toblo has pulled out in protest. Once Upon A Time has pulled out in protest. Everyday Shooter has pulled out in protest. Slamdance originally announced 14 game finalists. They are currently down to 8 participating finalists. Additional pullouts could cause a complete collapse of the 2007 Slamdance festival."

Journals

Alsee has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?