Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Wait, I'm confused... (Score 3, Interesting) 188

Isn't copyright infringement a civil offense?

It's both. 17 USC 506 defines criminal copyright infringement:

(a) Criminal Infringement.—
(1) In general.— Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

The usual differentiation between criminal and civil infringement is 1A, for the purpose of commercial advantage of private financial gain. I think in this case, it had to do with the fact that MegaUpload made significant amounts of money through advertising associated with the pages on which they were sharing works under copyright.

Comment Re:Pointing fingers at problems (Score 1) 493

How the hell does THIS work with freaking MATH? Dick: 4+4 = 8, good job A+ Jane: 4+4=8, stupid girl, fail F- UNless Jane really is not too bright won't she mention she got the right answer????

Dick: 4+4 = 7. Good attempt, and you set up the problem correctly. B-.
Jane: 4+4 = 7. See, this is why girls aren't good at math. You should probably focus on something girls are good at, like making sandwiches. F.

Comment Re:WTF? (Score 1) 493

The students were given two exams, one graded by outsiders who did not know their identities and another by teachers who knew their names.

Okay.

In math, the girls outscored the boys in the exam graded anonymously, but the boys outscored the girls when graded by teachers who knew their names.

How the fuck does that happen?

2+2=4 whether you are a boy or a girl.

How is a teacher grading that differently based on the kids' names?

Aw, Billy, you thought 2+2=3. Well, good effort, half credit.
Sally, you dumb slut, 2+2 does not equal 3. See, this is why you're never going to get any farther in life than a stripper pole.

Comment Re:Pointing fingers at problems (Score 5, Insightful) 493

Perhaps, but that wouldn't explain the results of the difference in grading

Did anyone ever stop to think that boys are better, and more interested, in some things than girls (and vice versa)?

I'm getting very sick of the daily "It's our fault that there aren't more women in tech" SJW blame-fest here on Slashdot.

And I'm getting very sick of the anti-SJW "I refuse to read the article, but will expound about how awful SJWs are because of my truthy gut feelings" bullshiat. You didn't read the article. The post you're responding to pointed out the difference in grading, and if you had read the article, you'd realize that GP was referring to:

Beginning in 2002, the researchers studied three groups of Israeli students from sixth grade through the end of high school. The students were given two exams, one graded by outsiders who did not know their identities and another by teachers who knew their names.

In math, the girls outscored the boys in the exam graded anonymously, but the boys outscored the girls when graded by teachers who knew their names. The effect was not the same for tests on other subjects, like English and Hebrew. The researchers concluded that in math and science, the teachers overestimated the boys’ abilities and underestimated the girls’, and that this had long-term effects on students’ attitudes toward the subjects.

Now, because you're clearly the slow kid who needs to have everything spoon fed to them, let me repeat: the students took the same test twice, and it was graded by different teachers. If the teachers did not know the gender of the student, the girls scored better. If the teachers did know the gender of the student, the boys scored better. These are farking math tests - there's a right answer and an infinite number of wrong answers. There's no reason that someone should score better or worse based solely on whether their name is Dick or Jane, unless the teachers are consciously or unconsciously discriminating.

So, now do you understand how your comment, "did anyone ever stop to think that boys are better, and more interested, in some thing than girls" is not just irrelevant, but totally wrong? The only thing you've shown is that you are worse than everyone who actually bothered to read the article.

Comment Re:Swatting is much more serious than a "prank" (Score 1) 327

This exactly. Given the assumption that the person is intentionally making a false report to the police, it should be attempted murder if noone dies, and if someone dies die it should be *premeditated* murder and prosecuted as such.

Yep. There is actually room for this in the case law, too - use of another as an "instrument" in committing murder. Painting a target on someone and shoving them in front of the cops certainly counts.

Comment Re:Basic DVD feature (Score 3, Interesting) 62

Sure was. My DVD remote still has the Angle button. I can't recall a single title that used it.

That's because it's a useless gimmick. And it requires lot of extra work to produce, with little or no real benefit.

On a DVD, sure. On live TV? Particularly sports? It's awesome. One of the stations - NBC or CBS, I think - streamed an NFL game on their website last year and let you select either the broadcast stream or any of the individual cameras, including sideline, overhead, QB close up, etc. That was really fun. I could see the same benefit for anything where different viewers may be interested in different things happening simultaneously - sports or concerts, primarily.

Comment Nope (Score 1) 141

POssibly the moon is formed from 2 bodies colliding and before it could completely settle down into a round shape it froze with that ridge remaining?

Nah, it's clearly an equatorial mass driver that was covered over with rock to keep it safe from meteorites.

Comment Re:I concur (Score 1) 425

This guy's my hero - misuse of "comprised" is a pet peeve of mine.

Despite sounding vaguely similar to "composed", it's not a synonym. Comprised is a near-synonym for included, but implies totality. "The band comprised a guitarist, a bassist, and a drummer" means that was the entirety of the band. Since so few people actually understand this, I tend to avoid the word.

I believe you have that backwards. "Comprising" is open-ended, and means "including at least". "Consisting of" implies totality. At least in the legal world.

Comment Re:Is she sure she told them the correct address? (Score 1) 224

Just fyi, and you may be aware of this as you are getting mails both with & without the period. Gmail essentially ignores them so you can send a mail to yourname@gmail.com, your.name@gmail.com or y.ourna.m....e@gmail.com and they will all work just fine :)

Yep. OTOH, I also have a common firstnamelastname@gmail address, and I've replied to emails to the other me with a similar polite explanation, and get angry responses back that no, firstname.lastname is different.

Okay, sure it is... But then, how did I manage to reply to your email?

Comment Re:hmm I wonder (Score 1) 779

Lolz. Back in the 1960s, the same exact argument was made for why women were better at computer work.

Your link makes no argument for why women are better at computer work. "And if it doesn't sound like women's work--well, it just is." So no, it doesn't make the same argument at all. I don't buy the original claim (for one thing, "jumping around quickly to different thoughts, problems, and topics" is actually quite useful), but your link fails to refute it.

Of course it fails to refute it, because neither proposition is true: women are neither inherently better nor worse at computer work. It's not like there's some dominant gene on the Y chromosome that makes men appreciate terminal windows more.

Comment Re:That's like ... (Score 1) 779

Genetically predisposed to be uninterested in CS. As in, hundreds of thousands of years of evolution created a genetic predisposition to be interested or not interested in a field that has only existed for half a century?

Just because the field has only existed for half a century doesn't mean that the predispositions aren't older than that. Humans are genetically predisposed to be better at riding a bike than a fish even though both have been around for much longer.

Yes, because, among other reasons, fish lack knees.

How many female professional race car drivers do you see?

For decades, women were not allowed to be professional race car drivers. Now, they're able to, and so there are now several, both in F1 and NASCAR. Are you going to suggest that women genetically evolved to become race car drivers over the past 80 years?

There are certain things about computers and cars that more boys than girls are attracted to.

Sure. For one, marketing. But you'd have to be crazy to suggest that that's due to genetics.

There are obvious exceptions like my daughter who likes sports and frogs more than her brothers but on average you will find more of one gender than the other attracted to certain activities and I don't see a problem with it as long as everyone is allowed to freely choose their own interests.

Yes, but again, that has nothing to do with a genetic predisposition. Now, if you were to say that you find more women than men menstruating or bearing children, or more men than women having color blindness, then you could point to a genetic predisposition. But to say that boys like computers because of genetics is just silly.

Not to mention the fact that most programming used to be done by women, back when it paid significantly less.

Comment Re:This thread will be a sewer of misogyny (Score 1) 779

No one is inherently more intelligent about anything. The truth is boys go into computers because boys are interested in computers: experiments with small children under 2 years old have shown that small boys find interests more in trucks, and small girls prefer dolls. Small boys who do play with dolls in such experiments tend to make them fight; we call boys's dolls "action figures" for this reason. In both cases, the children select for what interests them inherently.

This happens to be almost 100% incorrect:

New research from the University of Western Sydney shows baby boys prefer objects with faces over machines, challenging the theory of an innate preference among babies for ‘girly’ or ‘macho’ toys.
Researchers from the MARCS Institute Babylab at the University of Western Sydney gauged the preferences of four and five month old babies by showing them pictures of male and female humans and dolls, as well as cars and stoves.
The study, published in the Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, found that like baby girls, baby boys were more willing to engage with dolls than cars.

Comment Re:hmm I wonder (Score 1) 779

How about their pull their heads out of political correct land and realize male brains are better at logical computer tasks. Male and female brains process thoughts differently. This is known science! Female brains typically work well with relational thoughts and can piece multiple things together but lack solid focus on solving one individual problem. Male brains compartmentalize thoughts and like to process one thing to completion then move on instead of jumping around quickly to different thoughts, problems, or topics. Males are better at most computer work because of this and that's the end of it. Females don't work with computer science fields because they don't enjoy it and aren't good at it.

Lolz. Back in the 1960s, the same exact argument was made for why women were better at computer work. What's the difference between then and now? The amount that a computer programmer is paid compared to the minimum wage.

Comment Re:That's like ... (Score 1) 779

Are you trying to say that girls are genetically predisposed to be uninterested in CS? That doesn't seem right...

That's exactly what he's saying. I have 3 kids age 7-9. The boys love computers and video games. My girl won't touch a video game unless someone else is playing with her...

Genetically predisposed to be uninterested in CS. As in, hundreds of thousands of years of evolution created a genetic predisposition to be interested or not interested in a field that has only existed for half a century?

Comment Re:What's unclear? (Score 1) 99

Along with your work, you provide a promise not to sue, giving up all your rights to the work in question. It's clearly illegal to do that with the intent of changing your mind later.

Well, since the armchair /. lawyers will soon descend upon your post spouting off about how you can't enforce anything without a contract, let's just go ahead and get this posted: Promissory Estoppel ;-)

However, as your link notes, the measure of recovery wouldn't be the same as if the contract existed, since there would've been no negotiation and awarding full use of the work would be unjust enrichment. Instead, a court would probably say that there are no royalties due for past infringement, but that you don't get an unlimited right going forward to keep using the work.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...