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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:No, you don't have a right to be paid (Score 1) 368

No, you have copyright completely backward. The point is to prevent intellectual theft by companies like apple. The goal is to enable people who create new products to be compensated for them, and to have a way to enforce their right to get paid when companies like apple try to steal from them... like apple wants to do here.

If I develop a product such a film that people are interested in seeing, then I have a right to charge a fee to let them see it. Copyright exists to enable me to enforce that legally if necessary. Without copyright protection, I would have no legal way to enforce my intellectual property. In other worse, without copyright protection, creators can't create. That's how copyright benefits society, not by forcing creators to give their creations away for nothing. Or are you an apple schill trying to defend apple's willingness to steal from a legion of artists for its own benefit?

A machine that can make apples can be copyrighted, apples cannot. Ergo, your example is horseshit.

You do have a right to audition a song from a musician before purchasing more, if that's your preference; if the artist in question won't let you audition their music, then it comes down to salesmanship.

So... either you have a right to get paid for your work, or you're full of shit. If you're only able to come with a random hole as an example, then you should just give up and admit that you have no value to society. If someone needs a hole dug and you dig it for them, you have a right to be compensated, so once again your example is horseshit.

If someone has a product that you want, then you should compensate them for it. If you aren't interested, then you should not. That is the heart of capitalism, and whether you like Taylor Swift or not, it's what her letter is about.

Comment Re: Horray for Taylor Swift. (Score 1) 368

I'm just saying that people should only be praised for genuine altruism, and this most definitely isn't that. This is a selfish, not a selfless act.

Whether or not it's genuine altruism is irrelevant. Her stand is good for artists who are getting screwed, and her stance is the correct one, even if it IS due to greed, so who cares? She's drawing attention to the rest of the artists who Apple is quite happy to screw over, which is what matters here.

There were arguments about this when the Veronica Mars filmmakers launched a crowd funding campaign to finance the Veronica Mars movie. People said they shouldn't have done that, because they had money. They're ignoring however the fact that by launching such a high-profile crowd funding campaign for a film, they raised awareness of crowd funding for filmmaking and at the same time legitimized it in the eyes of the general public who weren't really on the crowd funding bandwagon yet, making it easier for independent filmmakers to find audiences and finance other film projects through crowd funding. They did the independent film community a lot more good than harm, so who cares that they could have paid for production on their own?

Comment Re:No, you don't have a right to be paid (Score 1) 368

The ones who want to make money won't. So what?

First off, copyright exists to protect the people who create the work, not to protect society. The whole point is to ensure that if someone creates a product that someone else wants such as a song, they have a right to demand to be paid for it in return for letting you listen to it.

It's true that if you go and randomly dig a ditch, there's no reason that you should get paid for it, but by your logic, you don't deserve to get paid for building a house that someone asked you to build. So it's YOU that doesn't deserve to get paid, not everyone else.

Comment Re: Horray for Taylor Swift. (Score 1) 368

But, this again? No you do not have a "right to be paid for your work."

You're basically saying that if YOU make a product and someone else wants it, they can take it and you don't have any right to be paid for it, which is ridiculous.

You cannot go dig ditches, fill them in, and say, "somebody pay me."

This doesn't describe what's going on here in any way.

This type of argument takes advantage of populist narrowmindedness, inability to imagine anything but their boring lives, and, frankly, their stupidity

Truly the only stupidity here is yours. On the one hand you're saying that people don't deserve to be paid for their work, and on the other you're saying that artists deserve to be paid for their work.

Whether YOU like Taylor Swift's music or not is irrelevant; what is relevant is that Apple wants to give the products that she and a lot of other artists have made away to entice people onto their service without paying those artists for their work. By any logic, this is called stealing. Apple's basically seeking to take advantage of the fact that they are a big company to screw the artists.

Comment Re:We the taxayer get screwed. (Score 1) 356

Exactly... and never mind that the auto industry, telecom industry, most of our current computing technology, plastics, and so on are also directly the result of government money, mostly in the form of either grants or the space program.

Plus, many the same companies that got their start using government money but no longer need it because they are sustainably profitable, continue to collect subsidies... while funneling profit money into purchasing lobbyists and politicians. THAT should be earning the ire of anyone complaining about companies receiving government subsidies, rather than companies that are creating new industries with government subsidies... because the latter are using the subsidies for what they're meant for.

Comment Re:Also (Score 1) 236

But the ash in the upper atmosphere, the lightest and finest stuff, tends not to cross the equator, so the southern hemisphere won't suffer the serious crop failures that the northern hemisphere will. Given how much of North America's food (and Europe's food, these days) comes from South America, the resulting famine will only be bad, rather than catastrophic.

This is where you're wrong. Even just major crop failures in the continental US would be enough to lead to catastrophic famine world wide, because everyone is so interdependent, and because we're already on the verge anyway. A lot of US food production goes toward countering shortfalls in Russia (one of Eastern Washington's largest markets for wheat, never mind that wheat is a thirsty crop and Eastern Washington is near desert, for example)... and the volcanic winter wouldn't be limited to the US, it would span the northern hemisphere. It most certainly would not wipe our species out, but there's not even a remote chance that our society would survive it.

Comment Re:Depends on the project (Score 1) 507

I agree with this. Most of the "agile" teams I've been part of just pretend that all it takes is sprints + scrum meetings to be agile. They throw any pretense at engineering out the window and rely largely on hacking in its most pejorative sense to get things done, which usually means ignoring quality and putting in a lot more hours.

Most teams I've been stuck in have also been more obsessed with who owns what and how many hours and story points everyone's working than on how much functionality they're implementing, and at the same time largely ignoring even any pretext at there being a team involved.

Comment Re: As a recent buyer of a mid-2014 MBP (Score 1) 204

When working with nonlinear video editing, compositing, and color grading, the GPU is the biggest bottleneck in most laptops. The CPU is a secondary limiter, but most of the high end professional video software out there use the GPU heavily.

There are a few exceptions, a small number of high end applications like Edius and Clarisse are primarily optimized around using the CPU instead of the GPU, but they're getting increasingly rare these days.

Comment Re:Moving Infected People (Score 1) 140

Add to that the fact that with most infectious diseases, the symptoms that would make it evident that they are ill are unlikely to manifest just on the flight. Most of the time, there's a gestation period of a few days to a week before the person who caught shows symptoms, and in some cases they can pass it on before they become symptomatic.

That's the biggest problem with relying on quarantine. Either you always quarantine every incoming international flight until you make sure that no one on board has something nasty, or you just wait until you detect it naturally, in which case you already have a pandemic. We were lucky that this one was a disease that doesn't travel well from host to host.

Comment Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 517

It makes me wonder if they're bringing out these stupid bills because they want to appease voters but know there's no chance of them actually passing because of white house veto.

It's a combination of pure idiocy, ideology, and corruption.

Idiocy, because that's quite simply what it is.

Ideology, because they place their political agenda over everything else.

Corruption, because their political agenda is whatever gets them the biggest bribes.

Comment Re:Good grief... (Score 1) 681

Agreed. One thing I've noticed is that computer geeks think that they know everything just because they can write working code, which fills me with contempt, especially if I end up inheriting their code and discovering that it's amazon-quality (not sure it's possible to get lower quality than that).

Most of the CS folks I've met are among the most scientifically illiterate folks I know. My standards for scientific literacy are higher than most people's though, because my degree is in biophysics.

Comment Re:disclosure (Score 1) 448

This kind of crap is like that junk science about autism and vaccines. Once that stuff gets out there, it is very difficult to get people to stop repeating it, even after it gets discredited. And this kind of disinformation has real-world consequences when people rely on it, including U.S. Senators making speeches on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

That's the real problem. The Koch brothers bought some airtime on fox to say that climate scientists are supporting anthropogenic climate change for the money, when in fact their funding is based on their doing verifiable research instead.

However, stupid people decide who's credible based on whether or not it's what they're saying is what stupid people want to hear.

The media royally fucked things up even more by claiming to be "balanced" - i.e. giving the deniers equal air time so as to show integrity, instead of giving the deniers what they deserved: show us some real, verifiable data, or just go fuck yourself. Even NPR made this colossal blunder of false journalistic integrity. Giving airtime to liars isn't balance, it's lying.

FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis