Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Can't really agree (Score 1) 283

For one, this is a private entity, and they are censoring on a fair grounds. But, probably more importantly, cinema is different that most other media in this regard in that you have a pseudo captive audience. You, as a movie watcher, can't change the channel, can't mute it, and even walking away is going to take you probably more time than the ad runs for. With religion being one of those things that can REALLY upset people, I think the chains are doing the only intelligent thing they can in the situation, avoid it entirely.

Comment Re:Yet another attack vector (Score 5, Interesting) 122

Indeed. While this might be interesting in the future, as is it is kinda a 'so what' kind of thing. Human drivers are even more easy to disorient and in generally far more seriously, and the car is just slowing down or coming to a halt, something you can also accomplish with putting a cheap obstacle in its path. Now, if they can get it to speed up or ignore obstacles then that would be concerning.

Comment Re:Bad Summary, but ultimately point has been prov (Score 1) 1044

No, but having people vote overwhelming for NOTHING because they don't like the candidate IS ideological block voting. I would say the same damn thing if sad puppies won overwhelmingly. Instead of the qualities of the books being what sets the bar, this clearly shows that it was politics that set the show. Sorry, you can't hide behind it's all personal choice when there was such campaigns pushing these outcomes at play here.

Comment Bad Summary, but ultimately point has been proven. (Score 2) 1044

The terribly slanted summary aside, I think ultimately this has shown that the process is borked to high heaven. Even if I give every point the No Award crowd seems to be pushing, which I certainly would not, they have shown that they will vote as an ideological block themselves to a degree that completely eclipsed the 'problem' group. All you have proven is your system is woefully broke and subject to ideological influence over all else. It is rather sad. It has proven to me that unless the Hugos completely overhaul there methodology, they are worthless, and just a matter of who can rally the biggest crowd of supporters, rather than anything to do with actual worth of the work.

Comment Re:This doesn't seem unusual. (Score 5, Insightful) 152

Get it right man, it isn't Zero Tolerance, it is Zero Intelligence. Come on now. Seriously though, that is really what Zero Tolerance is about, removing any form of intelligence from the decision making process and assuming that one solution fits all situations. It truly Zero Intelligence. As you say it just doesn't make sense.

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

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

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

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

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.

MSDOS is not dead, it just smells that way. -- Henry Spencer