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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re: freedom (Score 2) 1089

by JWW (#49300033) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US

Do you realize just how many potential mandatory voters don't file taxes every year? Or move beteween voting locales between elections? It's much larger numbers than you think. Mandatory voting would require the authorities to find them and, and this is the truly larger point CHARGE THEM WITH A CRIME.

Voting is a right. Mandatory voting is a compulsion. It changes the power of the vote from being something of the citizen over the government to a power the government wields over a citizen.

You can believe that power would be wielded honorably, but you'd quickly be proven wrong.

Comment: Re: freedom (Score 1) 1089

by JWW (#49298039) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US

Bzzzt. Wrong. Voted in every national level election since 1988.

But of course you got it wrong because you have it backwards. Those the vote would be known, those that don't vote would need to be looked into, investigated, or dare I say, spied upon.

My post was relatively in jest, but partly serious.

The government can't know who didn't vote without keeping meticulous records, hmmmmm lets call them "metadata", about peoples voting habits and whereabouts on voting day.

And don't say that they'd just look at the voter rolls and compare them to census data, they'd need to be far more thorough than that in their tracking and monitoring to be able to effectively fine or charge someone with the crime of not voting (and it'd have to be a crime to not vote because "mandatory").

Comment: Re: Today the EPA calls CO2 a pollutant (Score 1) 517

by JWW (#49187769) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

You used the standard dictionary definition of waterway. But the EPA has expanded their, correct in my opinion, oversight of actual waterways to include standing water and even temporary bodies of water from storms. A willful expansion of their power. I think they are giving themselves a club to use against farmers who do other things they don't like but can't stop through their current regulations. So they bogusly expand the regulations they have.

Comment: Re:Parody (Score 4, Insightful) 255

by JWW (#49174509) Attached to: Gritty 'Power Rangers' Short Is Not Fair Use

So what?

It was an interesting bit of film.

One that does NOT ONE DAMN THING to detract from the "actual" Power Rangers.

If our fucked up copyright laws forbid something as simple as this then that whole "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" shit that was intended is totally gone to hell.

If we can't stand on the shoulders of giants (or dudes in tacky suits) and create "new" interpretations, then we've lost the real reason for copyright anyway. I'm not saying that Power Rangers doesn't deserve copyright, but I am saying that reasonable copyright terms should have put it in the public domain by now.

I am currently boycotting all songs from Tom Petty because of his crappy copyright challenge to Sam Smith's "borrowing his song" I mean come on, if we compare every song with every other song and "alter the tempo", and "vary the pitch" then we're screwed. Music reuses all kinds of things all the time. Fuck, soon people will try to copyrighting fucking chords progressions and beats. Yeah Sam Smith's song resembles one of Petty's, but only if you torture it enough. What's next, syllable counts on choruses? That shit was ridiculous.

Copyright has become a farce that no longer does any good for the public. And since thats what it was supposed to be for, I'd say its high time we scrap the whole decrepit edifice of modern copyright law and start over.

Comment: Re:^THIS (Score 1) 493

by JWW (#49019113) Attached to: Will Elementary School Teachers Take the Rap For Tech's Diversity Problem?

Interesting list. But I have issues with item's 5 and 6.

When you look at Boys who go into Technical Fields, including CS, you find quite a large number of them who were as children quite interested in video game systems. This and their curiosity propelled them to try and figure out how these things worked. Some of my first programs were simple games, and hacking your way around the DRM for some games was a key technical puzzle to solve when I was growing up.

Also a key feature for many boys that later go into tech was figuring out how devices work. Nowadays, the smartphone is one of the devices to analyze that way, especially if they get into rooting the devices and reinstalling OSes on it.

Now kids may play the games and use the smartphones and not become interested in CS, but I'm don't think thats because of those activities generally.

I think kids interested in science and engineering are the kids interested in how those games and devices WORK.

Comment: Re:Why not? It's the truth (Score 5, Insightful) 645

by JWW (#48999313) Attached to: Does Showing a Horrific Video Serve a Legitimate Journalistic Purpose?

I think people in general are getting pretty sick of having islamic terrorists do horrific stuff and then the first thing the media does is point its finger at us saying "and don't you retaliate about this". In fact we don't, as individual citizens retaliate about this at all. There may be some instances here or there of poor treatment of muslims from some people, but they're constantly berating ALL of us to "not judge".

I think people are through with that, sick of being scolded for things we're not doing, while our leaders are developing habits of NEVER calling out these murderous islamic terrorists and stating that they are completely unacceptable in our world. They are only yelling at us to not ever respond in any way.

Comment: Maybe (Score 5, Insightful) 645

by JWW (#48999123) Attached to: Does Showing a Horrific Video Serve a Legitimate Journalistic Purpose?

Maybe if we don't look at it we can pretend it doesn't exist, right?

I commend Fox on this. As a consumer of news I want the CHOICE of whether I view this or not. I do not want the news provider to choose for me. As a point of fact, I have up to this point chosen not to view the video.

I am actually not upset a Fox for this, I am upset that the New York Times are such cowards that they won't show Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

Felson's Law: To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.