How delightfully lofty and optimistic of you. Next time you're being beaten to death by a murderer and you have a knife or a gun you can use to defend yourself, I hope you remember what you just said and lay back and die like a good boy instead of harming some innocent brute to save your own life.
If the article is to be believed, she and a few other people posted a picture of the officer in retaliation for the officer testifying in a drug case against one of her friends. So, you've got a charge of retaliation for that offense, but since she actively identified the person as being an undercover cop, she also blew open any current cases the officer was working on, which would also open her up to obstruction of justice.
The article questions whether retaliation is a legitimate charge because it can only be pressed in the case of "intentional harm or threat to harm" through an unlawful act. Obstruction of justice is an unlawful act, and exposing an undercover police officer can open them up to violent assault by criminals they may have been working with. That they knowingly posted his picture and identified him as an undercover cop satisfies the "intentional" part - the threat to harm could come from the potential for harm in such an event, so the charges are certainly fair.
How about a thread discussing the ridiculous irony of posting a video about free software as a Flash object and providing no alternate means of viewing?
You're mostly correct, but that occasional tech post is more like "some guy posts a link to his Kickstarter project", "somebody links to some lame DIY hack", or "some genius summarizes his dissertation on a topic that only 0.0001% of the readers can actually comprehend".
I don't know about you, but if my electric vehicle was fully submersed in water, I wouldn't worry that much about whether the batteries are fully charged or not.
If they write them down, they think their peers will laugh at them and conclude their work must not be worth much.
If they write down all the steps in the thought process, the reader will follow those steps, falsely believe that he/she knew it all along, and conclude that this paper is telling him/her nothing that he/she doesn't already know.
It's like Inception, except in this case you don't want them to think it was their idea.
"Heuristic findings indicate that sentiments expressed thusly reflecting disdain of empirically-recognized obfuscated expressions of otherwise archetypal theorems are invariably mirrored for all terms adjoining dx=log(N)+tY^x on alternating Tuesdays in July."
Small-time journals like this are the closest thing academia has to "self-publishing" in the literary world.
In the literary world, you could take a picture of every bowel movement you've had for the last year, pay somebody $1,000, and have the resulting picture book officially published by some official-sounding company, but that doesn't mean your GI accomplishments are noteworthy or impressive.
The editors for this particular journal probably thought they were witnessing some profound new discovery since they couldn't understand what the hell the paper was even proving. My suspicion is that they were quick to approve it in a vain attempt to make their journal even slightly relevant.
The system first alerts the driver to turn in a certain direction. If the driver cannot immediately turn in that direction, the system takes over the steering to help avoid a collision.
Either this system is incorrectly designed or the article is incorrectly summarized. What this article is saying is, if something runs out into the middle of the road, and the computer recognizes both sides of the road as clear and randomly decides I should turn left, but I veer right based on my own thought process, habits, etc, the computer will take over and turn the wheel back to the left as I'm already turning right? Thereby countering my original veering and possibly putting me right back on course to ram head-on into said obstacle?
In an optical sense, a camera works just like a flashlight. When you double the distance from a flashlight to a wall, you get four times the coverage on the wall even though the circle of light is twice its original diameter. A camera's viewing area works the same way - double the distance between a camera and an object and the object appears at half its original dimensions, but the surface area of the object in the frame is only a quarter of the surface area in the original image. You've got the same number of pixels covering 400% of the original viewing area, therefore your resolution is 1/4th of the original.
Hey, I have this awesome idea, let's take out all those expensive copper wires and make our data center wireless. It'll save so much money! But first we'll have to redesign racks to be cylindrical and servers will need to be keystone-shaped. Also, because of the new rack design, you won't have access to rear ports. If something in the center of the rack comes undone or stops working, you need to open the entire rack. And each rack will have to be a faraday cage so the signal doesn't leak out and collide with other racks. And each rack has to share the bandwidth. And servers will lose their connection every time a mouse farts. And you'll also have to devise a new cooling method because hot/cold-aisle won't work with a bunch of cylinders.
Why is Europe spending billions to create their own GPS constellation when the US government already went through the hassle and expense? The GPS system is free and open to use by anyone with a GPS receiver. This strikes me as nothing but a political move, as if to say "We're independent and don't need America to provide anything for us". This is a completely redundant and pointless project by the EU.
There are idiots on 4chan who spend all their time trolling forums, staring at gore pictures, and fapping to underage girls, and they call themselves "Anonymous". Then there are script kiddies who download LOIC and DDoS websites with their parents' internet connection, and call themselves "Anonymous". Then there are actual computer "hackers" (crackers?) who actually break into systems, steal data, and commit crimes, but I don't see very many of them flying the "Anonymous" flag nowadays.
It makes several baseless assertions questioning the integrity of the Romney campaign. It may not be tech news, but that puts it right up Slashdot's alley.
Also notice how only at the end of the article, in the last sentence, does it say "oh and by the way it wasn't Romney's fault."
Slashdot Mirror
Coursera is also down as a result.
Simple, I'll carry around a loaf of cyanide-laced bread and an unmarked beaker of H2SO4.
Some stupid mugger stole my drink, but now he robs no more.
For what he thought was H2O, was H2SO4!
How delightfully lofty and optimistic of you. Next time you're being beaten to death by a murderer and you have a knife or a gun you can use to defend yourself, I hope you remember what you just said and lay back and die like a good boy instead of harming some innocent brute to save your own life.
If the article is to be believed, she and a few other people posted a picture of the officer in retaliation for the officer testifying in a drug case against one of her friends. So, you've got a charge of retaliation for that offense, but since she actively identified the person as being an undercover cop, she also blew open any current cases the officer was working on, which would also open her up to obstruction of justice.
The article questions whether retaliation is a legitimate charge because it can only be pressed in the case of "intentional harm or threat to harm" through an unlawful act. Obstruction of justice is an unlawful act, and exposing an undercover police officer can open them up to violent assault by criminals they may have been working with. That they knowingly posted his picture and identified him as an undercover cop satisfies the "intentional" part - the threat to harm could come from the potential for harm in such an event, so the charges are certainly fair.
Just my two cents.
...politics has what to do with this, now? Just felt like throwing out blind accusations that the TSA is trying to give Republicans cancer?
How about a thread discussing the ridiculous irony of posting a video about free software as a Flash object and providing no alternate means of viewing?
I'm just here for the witty commentators and ACs. :) It gets me through the day.
You're mostly correct, but that occasional tech post is more like "some guy posts a link to his Kickstarter project", "somebody links to some lame DIY hack", or "some genius summarizes his dissertation on a topic that only 0.0001% of the readers can actually comprehend".
...hastily made in the back of a Waffle House filled with cold ham, some moldy cheese, and some strands of the chef's hair.
Wait, I have a better one - Slashdot is so biased, it's not an omelet - it's an Obamalet.
Nah, the first one was better.
safe to use under water.
I don't know about you, but if my electric vehicle was fully submersed in water, I wouldn't worry that much about whether the batteries are fully charged or not.
If they write them down, they think their peers will laugh at them and conclude their work must not be worth much.
If they write down all the steps in the thought process, the reader will follow those steps, falsely believe that he/she knew it all along, and conclude that this paper is telling him/her nothing that he/she doesn't already know.
It's like Inception, except in this case you don't want them to think it was their idea.
The spelling and grammar would be correct.
I get that feeling too.
Or, as a math professor would say,
"Heuristic findings indicate that sentiments expressed thusly reflecting disdain of empirically-recognized obfuscated expressions of otherwise archetypal theorems are invariably mirrored for all terms adjoining dx=log(N)+tY^x on alternating Tuesdays in July."
Small-time journals like this are the closest thing academia has to "self-publishing" in the literary world.
In the literary world, you could take a picture of every bowel movement you've had for the last year, pay somebody $1,000, and have the resulting picture book officially published by some official-sounding company, but that doesn't mean your GI accomplishments are noteworthy or impressive.
The editors for this particular journal probably thought they were witnessing some profound new discovery since they couldn't understand what the hell the paper was even proving. My suspicion is that they were quick to approve it in a vain attempt to make their journal even slightly relevant.
The obvious next step beyond randomly generated journal submissions is, of course, randomly generated Slashdot comments.
Bravo, good sir! Another milestone!
The system first alerts the driver to turn in a certain direction. If the driver cannot immediately turn in that direction, the system takes over the steering to help avoid a collision.
Either this system is incorrectly designed or the article is incorrectly summarized. What this article is saying is, if something runs out into the middle of the road, and the computer recognizes both sides of the road as clear and randomly decides I should turn left, but I veer right based on my own thought process, habits, etc, the computer will take over and turn the wheel back to the left as I'm already turning right? Thereby countering my original veering and possibly putting me right back on course to ram head-on into said obstacle?
What a grand idea.
So, it would look like the Slashdot logo?
In an optical sense, a camera works just like a flashlight. When you double the distance from a flashlight to a wall, you get four times the coverage on the wall even though the circle of light is twice its original diameter. A camera's viewing area works the same way - double the distance between a camera and an object and the object appears at half its original dimensions, but the surface area of the object in the frame is only a quarter of the surface area in the original image. You've got the same number of pixels covering 400% of the original viewing area, therefore your resolution is 1/4th of the original.
They'll never go for it.
as the disk controller reads them their last rites before they integrate with the great RAID array in the sky.
It's been a whole month? Jeez, the Ask Slashdot editors are really off their game. We should be seeing this at least once a week.
Hey, I have this awesome idea, let's take out all those expensive copper wires and make our data center wireless. It'll save so much money! But first we'll have to redesign racks to be cylindrical and servers will need to be keystone-shaped. Also, because of the new rack design, you won't have access to rear ports. If something in the center of the rack comes undone or stops working, you need to open the entire rack. And each rack will have to be a faraday cage so the signal doesn't leak out and collide with other racks. And each rack has to share the bandwidth. And servers will lose their connection every time a mouse farts. And you'll also have to devise a new cooling method because hot/cold-aisle won't work with a bunch of cylinders.
Just think of the simplicity and savings!
Why is Europe spending billions to create their own GPS constellation when the US government already went through the hassle and expense? The GPS system is free and open to use by anyone with a GPS receiver. This strikes me as nothing but a political move, as if to say "We're independent and don't need America to provide anything for us". This is a completely redundant and pointless project by the EU.
computer hacker collective Anonymous.
I stopped reading right there. Emphasis mine.
There are idiots on 4chan who spend all their time trolling forums, staring at gore pictures, and fapping to underage girls, and they call themselves "Anonymous". Then there are script kiddies who download LOIC and DDoS websites with their parents' internet connection, and call themselves "Anonymous". Then there are actual computer "hackers" (crackers?) who actually break into systems, steal data, and commit crimes, but I don't see very many of them flying the "Anonymous" flag nowadays.
It makes several baseless assertions questioning the integrity of the Romney campaign. It may not be tech news, but that puts it right up Slashdot's alley.
Also notice how only at the end of the article, in the last sentence, does it say "oh and by the way it wasn't Romney's fault."