Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Bad Summary, but ultimately point has been prov (Score 1) 1026

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) 1026

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

There are three kinds of people: men, women, and unix.

Working...