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


Forgot your password?

Comment So, what does that mean if it is true? (Score 3, Interesting) 84 84

Does that mean those upload are now legal since they actually uploaded them? Or are they still illegal due to some loophole? Or, as I recall, is it that Prenda didn't have the rights in the first place so they actually committed copyright infringement too in uploading them?

Comment Re:Theory has its place (Score 1) 364 364

Actually, they are without value. If you can't test something, then that thing fits all the observable possibilities. If it fits all the observable possibilities, then it is useless as it gives us no insight. If you could test it, it would at least exclude some of those observable possibilities so if they happen, you know it is false, if they don't, it so far continues to hold. The only value it might have is in the future if you find something that can finally be tested about it, but until then it is worthless.

Comment Re:Additional Equally Banal Comment (Score 1) 172 172

Actually, if you generated the exact same picture yourself, it is not copyright infringement, but still copyrighted. It's one of those weird differences between copyright and patents. If you can show you produced the work independent of the other work, you are free of infringement claim. Same defense will not work in a patent case (although knowing infringement will usually get you a harsher penalty). Now of course, that's just theory, in practice that's an uphill battle to prove. And also, you can copyright something that is a production of something that isn't copyrightable. For instance, individual words in the English language that are not copyrightable can end up copyrighted merely by being expressed in a set order (aka a work of literature). Same here. While every individual element of that nature shot isn't copyrightable, the picture itself is as it a particular arrangement of time, place and setting that is deemed artistic.

Comment Re:Trademark Fair Use (Score 1) 81 81

Yeah, I think the big sticking point in these types of things is who's work is it. You can use the name in trademark, but you have to be sure you don't confuse consumers about the true origins of the product in question, in this case the film. So long as they put the 'unauthorized' somewhere prominent, I think they'll be in the clear.

Comment Re:And.. (Score 1) 56 56

No, you don't understand. The big lobbies are actually the big corporations and they want it as it is annoying for them too. It is just that they want it in a very specific way that lets them still leverage their patents but not the little annoying bugs that keep suing them. It is just a matter of which big company's version we'll end up getting and with other big company gets screwed in the process.

Comment Re:"standard-essential patents” (Score 3, Insightful) 83 83

That just simply wouldn't work. As another poster already pointed out, if you deny them the patent, then they have no reason to involve themselves in researching such, or standardizing. It would also simply encourage even MORE patent trolling as any patent holder can now say their patent isn't FRAND/RAND. The whole point of FRAND/RAND patents is to encourage companies to cooperate, make standards, and not patent troll each other.

Comment Kinda 50 50 on this one. (Score 1, Insightful) 760 760

On the one hand, a scaling punishment I think is a smart idea. On the other hand, since ticket fines generally go right back into the department coffers, this will make the police target those of means far more and kinda reverse the current situation, where you'll have the average joes being more reckless because the cops don't see it as worth their time to pull them over. This will also lead to the rich guys going for clunkers to avoid being targeted. So in the end, you might actually end up with less overall safety. Now, if the departments didn't get that income, maybe we could curb that trend.

Comment Re:Unfair comparison (Score 5, Interesting) 447 447

Because research has shown placebo's do have in fact, while small, a significant effect on health. As noted this is likely purely due to psychosomatic effect rather than any medical benefit but nonetheless it happens. It is a bit of a catch 22 though, since it is psychosomatic, for it to be effective, it has to actually seem like legit treatment even though it's nothing more than a trick. We humans are very strange in that regard.

Comment Re:So they got their reservation using deception? (Score 3, Interesting) 1007 1007

You can learn a fair bit from creationist, which is exactly what bogus arguments they use to try and convince others. Plus, believe it or not, not everyone who spouts nonsense is actually impervious to reason. Sometimes, just sometimes, they are merely ignorant and can be swayed. And as to the University venue, a University is supposed to support discourse, not enforce dogma, even if that dogma is deemed correct. They are teaching creationism, and they aren't forcing anyone to go, they are merely allowing it to be said. Going down the road of 'you can't say THAT here' is a very dangerous turn of thinking and should only be done in the most extreme of cases. Now, if the presenters start advocating for killing all the scientists, feel free to kick them to the curb.

Comment Re:Oracle (Score 1) 146 146

One must remember that the previous case was a matter of trademark, not copyright. Microsoft was deemed to be improperly using the Java trademark in their marketing for J++ (this due to J++ not meeting the Java compatibility standard). Didn't stop MS from making similar API's, they just couldn't call them Java compatible. Also, MS at the time had a license for Java making the previous lawsuit even more dissimilar to the current one.

Comment Re:promoting violence against women? (Score 1) 1134 1134

It's more to do with the way women die in these games. Male characters usually have, well, a character, a personality and some role in the story. Their deaths have meaning and relate to them, and are at least somewhat realistic.

They do?!! Really, what FPS/TPS have you played lately where all the fodder have personalities and roles in the story beyond being guys shooting back at you? Let's be frank, the GRAND majority of all characters in a game are empty shells used as obstacles or background decoration, regardless of gender of the character. You bring up Princess peach, but how much personality does Bowser or Mario have, nearly none, hence why it is so easy to swap pretty much any of them with other characters without having any major impact on the game.

Now, there are definitely examples of terrible usage of female characters in video games, but don't grossly over generalize. That's one of the biggest issues in this situation, one side or the other taking this as an absolute across the board, and when you do that, yeah you'll tick people off as that's a pretty bad misrepresentation of the situation.

Comment It depends on field (Score 1) 546 546

If you're just going for code grunt who just needs to implement X, then a degree is largely worthless verses just general coding ability. By contrast, if you're getting lot of 'I have problem X, can you solve it' situations, theory becomes a lot more important and the coding a lot less. However, i suspect the bulk of programming positions are more the former than the latter.

The brain is a wonderful organ; it starts working the moment you get up in the morning, and does not stop until you get to work.