Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:in RE: Privacy, not Ownership (Score 1) 369

Well, he clearly owns the copyright on the photographs, so if anyone wants to contest that they are SOL. The privacy concern is legitimate if and only if the pictures were taken in an area where there was an expectation of privacy. A sporting event with people in the stands cheering certainly doesn't seem like a private event...

Does he? Who's equipment did he use? His own? the schools?

If he used his own, then yes I'd agree he fully owns everything, even if he was using his equipment on behalf of the school newspaper/etc.

But if he used the school's (except by permission for his own personal use, etc), then there's a case that could be made that the school owns the work. It's harder since he likely wasn't PAID for it (which is typically required) but the case could be made.

Comment: Re:It's the same in professional sports. (Score 1) 369

Most professional sports teams copyright their games. Even tweeting the score can get you in trouble. I guess this is no different. I'm not sure why the IRS would be involved though. Do they handle copyright enforcement?

There is nothing legally preventing you from tweeting the score, and they can't prevent you from recording or photographing anything (legally) unless you otherwise agree - usually as part of buying a ticket, the ticket being the contract; however, it could be argued that the contract is too one-sided so it non-enforceable.

They can control what is broadcast via the networks to the degree that is it not over the public airwaves, which per FCC are public and anyone can record.

Comment: Re:Unless it was part of a contract..... (Score 2) 369

While all that's true, he didn't have a release from the athletes to post their likeness online. That's usually part of the standard parent signature form in athletics (I assume - I'm no athlete) but that would only affect photos taken under authority of the school. So the school has no standing, but the students and their parents might.

Doesn't need one at a PUBLIC event. He only needs it if doing photos in private, restricted areas - e.g the locker room.

Comment: Need? (Score 4, Informative) 298

Need to know? None. All critical skills remain the same - communication, writing, math.

Should know? Basic familiarity, tools, and typing so that they can use the tools available via technology when its appropriate to use, and the knowing when to and when not to use it.

Technology does not magically solve problems. If you don't know how to write, using Word or OO/LO Writer isn't going to help you and it won't necessarily make you a better writer either. It's not different than a calculator making you a better mathematician versus just helping you along - you have to know how to do the math either way and when to use which formula, something a calculator can't teach you. All these things are beyond the purview and ability of technology.

So honestly, you could remove computers, the Internet, etc from the classroom and probably be more effective in teaching the requisite skills to move through life. What technology will be used in life will change over time and teaching it in the classroom won't change that or better prepare students for what technology they will actually use in the work force and life - exception being the specific vocational training for vary specific vocations and the requisite technology associated therein, even then an automotive mechanic should be able to diagnose a vehicle without a computer, etc.

Comment: Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 121

by TemporalBeing (#49720311) Attached to: Learning About Constitutional Law With Star Wars

TBH, I don't even get why the TFA author's idea was necessary. The US Constitution was built out of a long series of debates, compromises, and not a little effort towards future-proofing (and let's be honest, idiot-proofing). That, and they included mechanisms to modify it as needed.

Sure, the process was arduous and it involved a lot of potential inclusions that would quite frankly scare many folks today. That said, once finalized and ratified, it's in place and should be treated as the original document. If you (or anyone) want it changed, then use the mechanisms included to do just that. We've managed to do so for a couple of centuries now without violating the thing, so why get all creative about it now?

The complaints: It's too hard to get 66% of Congress and 75% of the States to agree to change it, so politically it's just easier to get SCOTUS to allow the Federal government to do what is desired by "reinterpreting" the meaning you want into what was already written.

It's primarily a complaint by those in favor of Big Government; though many in favor of Small Government have turned to it as well in order to try to roll back the Progressive movements of the last 100 years. So both sides are now guilty of it.

There's a balance to be struck between the two positions; though I do favor the Originalism position more and give more weight to it. There's a lot to be learned from history and Originalism forces you to look back at history, learn from it, and apply it to today. The "Living Document" position does not, and sets up the repetition of history as a result since they ignore history, ignore lessons learned from history, and just try to do their own thing.

Comment: Re:No. (Score 2) 507

by TemporalBeing (#49693523) Attached to: Is Agile Development a Failing Concept?

Because I'm being reponsible to the needs of the project, I end up being unable to do the tasks (stories) assigned during the development period (sprint). If I was irresponsible I would do just my parts in the sprint and tell all the competing needs to bugger off.

So the stories spill from one sprint to another. There's nothing wrong with that. That's part of the methodology of Agile, and also points that the project manager is not properly managing the project - whether not having enough people on the project to handle the work required for the sprint durations, or overloading the sprints in hopes of getting work done faster than they should, or the people involved in the project are not accurately breaking down stories into suitable chunks.

Comment: Re:No. (Score 2) 507

by TemporalBeing (#49691685) Attached to: Is Agile Development a Failing Concept?

I've got to agree with JohnFen. As a Program Manager, while Waterfall techniques could frequently end up with late or over budget, or both, projects, at the end of every project (I oversaw 5 multimillion dollar projects using Waterfall methods) we at least had a working application that met the original specifications. Now, after two similarly sized Agile projects, all I can say is it seems to be an excuse for developers to skip QA/QC procedures "because we're already into the next scrum" and end up with a mess that doesn't come close to matching the original specification at the end blaming changing requirements and "developmental issues" during the scrum process. I just turned down a contract that explicitly required Agile coding because I don't have any confidence that the end user will be satisfied with the results.

Having participated in both; I can see benefits either way. However, allowing the developers to do what you've said is a fault in the management of the project. QA/QC/QE is part of Agile. If need be, you just add tasks (stories) in Agile to do it and make sure they get done - if not, you're not managing the project correctly.

Agile itself is about being responsive to the needs of the project, and that includes all the QA/QC/QE stuff, as well as Security, Bugs, Changing Requirements, etc.

Now, if you're working in an organization that will enforce that the requirements will not change (do any such organizations exist?!!) then Waterfall is probably better than Agile.

Comment: Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score 1) 329

by TemporalBeing (#49563827) Attached to: ESPN Sues Verizon To Stop New Sports-Free TV Bundles

Disney (they own ESPN) has always negotiated the contract such that if you want to purchase ESPN you must purchase ALL of ESPN's channels. Oh, and if you offer it on your base tier package then you must offer all of it on the base tier package. Don't like it? Fine no Disney/ABC/ESPN channels for you! And no Marvel or Star Wars titles. And no Muppets while we're at it. You want to tell your kid he can't watch Disney because YOU wouldn't pay for ESPN Classic?

Yes, it gives me a point on which to teach them about responsible use of finances and how they can't have everything in life.

Comment: Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score 0) 329

by TemporalBeing (#49563803) Attached to: ESPN Sues Verizon To Stop New Sports-Free TV Bundles

Wrong, maybe I would subscribe and watch TV if and only if it was something I found entertaining, convenient and at a correct price.

Give me a service I want to buy and then I can be a customer again, but I voted with my money, so don't you fucking tell me what I can and cannot say.

Mod parent up!

Comment: Re:Reason: for corporations, by corporations (Score 1) 489

by TemporalBeing (#49446181) Attached to: Reason: How To Break the Internet (in a Bad Way)

Do tell me why, then, an Information Service was even defined if nothing was supposed to be classified under it.

Even the name ISP sort of gives it away: Information Service Provider

NetFlix and Hulu would be Information Services, aka Content Provider.

Generic ISPs are not Information Services, but Communications Services. They content of the communications just happens to be data instead of voice.

The problem is that the ISPs also have a Content-Provider side of the business - e.g. uVerse TV, Xfinity, Cable TV Services, Disney (since it's owned by one of the cable companies), and more. So there is an inherent conflict of interest.

Comment: Re:Reason: for corporations, by corporations (Score 1) 489

by TemporalBeing (#49446075) Attached to: Reason: How To Break the Internet (in a Bad Way)

HOAs are voluntary. They're nutty, but people voluntary enter into those agreements. This has nothing to do with Libertarianism except in that it's free people acting freely with one another. No one's forcing you to buy a home that's part of one. I wouldn't.

HOAs are not voluntary in most cases. In some states there is no requirement to disclose the HOA prior to closing either.

Yes, an HOA can be setup as voluntary; but most are not and are part of the Land Deed that goes with the property in a clause that cannot be removed from the Deed. Fees and Fines can be placed as liens against the property (usually granted to the HOA in the Deed).

My parent's, for instance, bought a house in OH. They didn't know there was an HOA at all until months later when someone from the HOA tried to collect dues. The majority of the people in the development did not want the HOA. They couldn't absolve it unless they got the local township to annex them; and the township didn't want to annex them.

When my wife & I bought our first home in SC, they was a voluntary HOA. We never joined since the rules of the HOA only applied if you were in the HOA; and there wasn't really any benefit to being part of it. It has since dissolved because of not enough members, meetings, etc.

When we were looking for a home in GA we came across a number of HOAs, including one that was "voluntary" - voluntary until an owner joined it, then it was no longer voluntary for them or any subsequent owners. They were actively trying to get all the homes to be no longer voluntary.

When we bought our second home in GA, there was no real HOA. There is an "HOA" but it's only got charge of the maintenance for the entrance; no rules, no attachment to the deed, etc.

Both in SC and in GA we had to look long and hard to find an HOA that was not restrictive. Most had dumb rules like "you cannot work on a car in your driveway except in emergency". The worst was one in SC that had a rule that anyone under 18 found on common property after 10 PM would be arrested for trespassing - they made the rule in response to a couple of minors and an adult vandalizing the pool house.

Ultimately, HOAs do not "increase or maintain value" for a home. They decrease it because of the rules and how hard it is to change them.

Comment: Re:don't need to look it up (Score 1) 53

by TemporalBeing (#49423623) Attached to: Back To the Future: Autonomous Driving In 1995

Actually the last machine I had with a turbo button was the DX4-100, if you turned off the turbo it ran at 66 MHz I think. It was totally pointless, no software assumed it ran at that speed. If they still had an XT/AT compatibility button that would actually have been useful, as it were I think it was just for marketing because people expected a "turbo" mode.

My Gateway 2000 P-75 (Pentium 75 MHz) had a "Turbo" button (

Comment: Re:Sensors wrong (Score 1) 460

by TemporalBeing (#49423585) Attached to: Planes Without Pilots

Isn't there a philosophical difference on whether the machine should watch the pilot (and override the pilot if the machine thinks the pilot is making a mistake) and the pilot watching the machine (and overriding the machine when the pilot thinks the machine is making a mistake) ?


Boeing vs Airbus

US (individual) vs Europe (collective)

"I prefer rogues to imbeciles, because they sometimes take a rest." -- Alexandre Dumas (fils)