Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:MongoDB? Thanks., I'll pass (Score 1) 175

Not only because stuff like this, , but also because MongoDB performance actually isn't that great. I do care about my data, and PostgreSQL is actually faster in some scenarios (eg. if you actually know what you're doing), so thanks, I'll pass. And Apache HTTPD? Who's still using that on new projects?

Curious, if not Apache httpd, then what?

Comment Re: jury duty and double jeopardy (Score 3, Insightful) 82

I don't know the legality, but it seems shitty. Think about how it could be easily abused.

"The defendant has a history of abusing children and assaulting police officers. He has cheated on his wife and hadn't paid his bills. Consider all of this when you determine how he should be sentenced."

Utterly reprehensible if this is legal. This is what children do. If I were on a jury, I'd be inclined to give the most lenient sentence possible.

Comment Re:WTF? (Score 2) 225

I know that Slashdot in general loves to follow the stereotypical nerd rage against sports and jocks, but there are some of us who love it all. I love technology and I love athletics--especially when you combine the two. This story actually had the potential for geeking out. They did this over at 538:

That's the angle that Slashdot should have taken, but not everybody here is an obese, cheetos-loving, basement dweller.

Comment Re:Protect the income of the creators or they can' (Score 1) 302

...create anything. Just 'cos the 'net makes it easy to copy and distribute creative works does not make it OK. People who just don't want to pay for stuff should admit it instead of pretending they have some kind of real philosophy or that is is for the creators' good (I mean, it might be, but it should be up to them to decide, not some guy in a basement who really just wants free stuff).

I agree with you so far. When I was in college, I didn't want to pay for anything because I couldn't afford anything. Now I've had real income for a while, so I'm happy to pay for the IP I use. Generally, IP should be honored via copyright and patents.

The problem is the middle level. I want creators to get well paid and consumers to get well priced access. That does not need a record company, say, in the traditional sense.

Copyright needs to (I reckon) end with the death of the creator; simple. And the creator has to be a human not a corporation. Probably legally difficult, but makes sense to me. I guess we need ways for copyright to be signed over to a corporation; or do we? Leased instead, until the 'death' of either party or until some agreed time prior. That way a corp can 'own' the copyright but only till the creator dies or the contract is up, whichever comes first.

Wait, why does it need to be so long? What you suggest is shorter than the current Infinity-1 the middle men are aiming for, but what was wrong with the original 14+14years on copyright? It's not like 99.999% of IP can be monetized past 5 years anyway.

I think that copyright can be owned by corporations in a problem. It should always be owned by the creator, and they can license it to corporations if they would like. Creators should never lose their copyright.

This argument I keep hearing that free distribution of, for example, music benefits the musician because they 'make more money in live shows anyway' is moronic in the extreme. Like every musician has the same business model? Sure, for some it might work that way: but not everybody can keep touring. They get older -- do they suddenly lose the right to make any money off their life's work because they can't tour behind it? Musician thinks: "Gee, I've got kids, a wife who works, I can't spend 10 months a year on the road like when I was 25 -- and double whammy, I don't get royalties either 'cos apparently I 'benefit' from all the exposure I get from my music being free." One size never fits all and ideology is often a cover for greed.

Okay, I wanted to preface my post by saying I pay (a lot) for IP, and I'm an honest guy. And honestly, what you say here is pure crap. I'm a developer, and I don't get to coast on the fruit of my "life's work" forever. You want to make more money, produce more IP. Like everyone. Music and video are not special.

By the way, it's because of the blood-sucking middle men that musicians can't make a decent buck from their recordings.

Ideally, creators get to say what happens. That's bound to encourage people to create. They can release their songs into the wild if they want, or not. But it's not up to 'us' to decide.

Creators get to participate in the conversation. The People get to say what happens. We had a reasonable deal at first: max 28 years of copyright. Then the lawmakers started listening to the IP holders instead of The People and we have the crap system that doesn't let anything ever go into Public Domain.

Comment Re:Repeal the Fourth Amendment (Score 1) 409

I don't know if you're from out of the country or haven't taken (or forgot) your 8th grade Constitution class. The reason the base document didn't contain the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) was because most of the founders of the country believed that those rights were Inalienable (or as the Declaration of Independence says, 'Unalienable'). In other words, they are already defined and naturally granted to each person, and defining your government didn't define them nor take them away.

The point of the Constitution was to draw a boundary for the government, and it was not supposed to ever exceed that boundary. Personal/Human rights were considered to be outside that boundary. The document was practically defining was how the government could supersede your rights (e.g. how imports and exports are handled), but that was all it could do. The Tenth Amendment articulates the thought the writers of the Constitution were assuming, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." If it's not in the Constitution, the federal government can't do it.

Some the founders worried that the government would start to invade the rights of its people if their rights were expressly enumerated. Hence we have the Bill of Rights that draws boundaries around particular rights that the government is not supposed to go inside (see the difference in perspective?). I happen to agree with the idea of the Constitution without the Bill of Rights in principle (government can't overstep its definitely), but look at how creative politicians have been bending, breaking and redefining the rules over the years. All three branches of government are guilty with this. So it turns out the proponents of the Bill of Rights were pretty forward thinking, because the federal government has expanded beyond its original scope, beyond its constitutional scope, and the Bill of Rights is the only thing that hasn't prevented the government from entirely consuming us. They fight and argue over those rights boundaries, but thankfully we have them.

Unix will self-destruct in five seconds... 4... 3... 2... 1...