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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:For starters... (Score 1) 806

I mean, hell...the ONLY reason I work, is to earn enough $$$$ to support my lifestyle. If I didn't have to earn the money, I'd certainly not be working...and I"d have a blast till I died.

Generally speaking, once you have enough money so you don't have to work, many of the pressures of work go away (you're not worried about getting fired, etc.). If you're actually independently wealthy, you typically start your own business doing some type of work that you really find fulfilling. You generally won't work for someone else unless you really want to work for them (i.e. getting your "dream job", or working with someone you idolize).

The reason you will still work with ridiculously wealthy is because if you don't work you'll soon get bored, or start to feel like a worthless leech only taking from society, but not giving anything back. It's the same reason why so many retirees go out and get jobs they don't really need.

Comment Re:Basic Income (Score 1) 61

There's a problem here. The most likely first response is the cost of a place to live going up over $250/month. Those who have the power to set prices are likely to see that as just an opportunity to increase prices.

The problem with this logic is twofold.

First, you can't simply increase rent because people are making more money; people remember for years what they think the cost of things should be, and are reluctant to pay more than that, and will shop around for a better deal. So, while company A decides to raise prices, Company B decides not to do so, and gets more business because of this and still results in an increase in profits (due to a sale rate closer to capacity).

Secondly, an increase in price in one area of an industry, especially the budget options, causes a ripple effect increasing the prices of everything in an industry. While this may cause a short-term price increase, factors will return it to a lower equilibrium. If you do a 20-50% increase in rent for budget apartments (which could only happen with a cartel controlling almost all apartments in a city), it will start to increase everything else in the housing market. If budget apartments suddenly cost as much as midrange, then why would you rent budget? This leads to an increase in midrange rental, increasing prices there, so more people go expensive or buy a house/condo. This causes people to leave the rental market, so suddenly you have empty budget apartments all over the place. To rent those out again, the prices will have to start to come down.

Comment Re:Done to _gouge_ the customer better (Score 2) 379

Except that NO other companies do this. And if people actually abandon Xerox, and HP, Epson, etc. see Xerox losing customers, they will not adopt the same policies, and Xerox is likely to reverse their decision to adopt regional encoding.

There is no need for government regulation here. The market will fix this.

History has proven your assumptions wrong. People will gripe, grumble, and complain, but the companies won't care. Not enough people will leave Xerox over this to make a noticeable difference. Once HP / etc.start coming out with their next generations of printers, you can bet they'll be including this same region-locking tech in them. This is the same thing that happened when manufacturers started using microchips to decide you were out of ink based on the number of pages printed instead of actual ink levels; it pissed all the consumers off, but every manufacturer adopted it, so WTF are you supposed to do about it?

Comment Re:More social decay. (Score 4, Insightful) 319

However, lies to strangers and casual acquaintances are a different thing than lies to someone who is supposed to be able to have implicit trust in you. I'm not talking about small lies like "I'm on my way right now" when you'd totally forgotten something, but the big important ones like "I'm swear not fucking the babysitter." It's a sheer betrayal on a personal level - it causes emotional pain and suffering, and is of the type that such relationships almost never recover from.

Comment Re:IR LEDs did it better years ago (Score 1) 110

No, those don't work if you're being targeted. You can play with the color levels on the recording and 'see' behind the IR whiteout

Sure, and you can say "enhance" at a computer to turn a grainy photo into a HD quality one. No amount of computer magic can overcome the limitations of the recording device itself, and superbright IR/UV LEDs completely saturate the pixels on a camera. You can't "play with the color levels" if they all think they're at 100% - you need to have a different camera instead.

Besides, if you're being targeted, they'll have actual eyes on you anyway, or already know who you are. The only use the glasses / LEDs have are to stop passive persistent facial recognition. If anyone actually watches that video, they can and will have no problem tracking your movements. The point is they can't just drop a frame of you into a search and find out who you are and everywhere you've been.

Comment Re:IR LEDs did it better years ago (Score 1) 110

TFA mentions this, and mentions the fact that LEDs require power...so you'll need some type of attached battery pack too. You could probably rig up some LR44's to run a couple LEDs, since those are at least rechargeable. But still need batteries.

LEDs can run off of watch batteries. You can easily fit the entirety of such in a DIY hat, and professionally made glasses could be made to fit the batteries in the frames.

Comment IR LEDs did it better years ago (Score 2) 110

You could always just stick a couple of bright IR LEDs on normal glasses or a hat and achieve the same or better effect. They have the added bonus of having their existence be invisible to the naked eye, so nobody in person knows you're even messing with the CCTVs. Even more importantly, you don't have to wear some bizarre oversize glasses that would look out of place anywhere except a scifi convention.

Comment Re:Mickey Mouse copyright extenstions... (Score 1) 183

Extending it won't encourage the dead author to produce more work, but it can (theoretically) encourage people who are alive now to create works they wouldn't otherwise have done because they'll be able to better provide for their descendants.

Actually, the long copyrights actually discourage the creation of new works, as those who are living today cannot use these characters or stories as building blocks for new stories. Also, the long copyrights don't realistically provide for their descendants - you've got a better chance of winning the lottery than having a work give real value after 30 years.

The truly ironic part of this is that Walt Disney became famous and made his empire by building upon stories that were in the public domain - Snow White, Cinderella, etc, etc. If it hadn't been for these previous works being available for reuse and reinterpretation he never would have gotten to the point of creating Mickey Mouse in the first place. Disney's empire, today built upon perpetual copyrights, was originally built upon expired ones.

This perfectly demonstrates the true evil behind perpetual copyrights. A truly innovative genius like Walt Disney only was able to do what he did because the short copyright of the time actually allowed such innovation - Disney didn't need to work for a corporate conglomerate and sign over everything he made to them specifically because nobody could copyright things forever. With the current laws, we've got ever more of our culture locked up by corporations whose only motivation is to make money, not to create or innovate. They wield copyright as a club to stifle and prevent innovation by anyone else who wants to build upon what they "own".

Comment Re: Mickey Mouse copyirght extenstions... (Score 1) 183

Can you explain how innovation is stifled if copyright duration is infinite? Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't quit their company after making their first billion. A billion dollars is a lot for one person and his family. So why did they continue to work?

However, did you notice that they stayed with that company instead of going to a new one? The company owned the work, and the inventor would never be allowed to expand upon that invention if they'd left. An inventor creates, but a company simply collects - In the case of Steve Jobs, he was forced out of Apple for many years, and worked on other projects and in other industries. Apple, on the other hand, stagnated without Jobs's influence and spurred no real innovation while it sat on the copyrights it held from years before, and used them to stifle innovation from potential competitors. It wasn't until Jobs (the inventor) returned that Apple (the company) started to do anything innovative again.

However, if you want some specific real examples of how infinite copyright would stifle innovation, you need only look at characters that are public domain that barely avoided being locked up in the perpetual copyright we have now. One perfect example is the modern concept of Santa Claus - this jolly figure in the red and white outfit comes from an artist named Thomas Nast, who copyrighted the image. If copyright didn't expire, Santa Claus would be under some corporate conglomerate's thumb, and they could stop anyone else from ever using the character. All those cartoons and movies from your childhood (and your parents' and grandparents' for that matter) that use the character would have never existed. This shared cultural icon wouldn't even be a shared cultural icon, and we'd be poorer as a society for it. Don't believe me? Name for me a single true cultural icon that's come into existence in the last 80 years.

Comment Re:Tax dollars at work. (Score 1, Informative) 674

You do realize this is the UK? We don't use dollars here.

Yup, I realize, but typed what I was thinking without slowing down to convert units. Regardless, this is the internet and I'm pretty sure everyone knows what is meant. If someone from Europe commenting on a US issue talks about the waste of pounds or euros most people here understand that, too.

Comment Re:From the TFA (Score 3, Interesting) 389

You need to meet the terms that BMI puts forth if you play their material. Their website deals with this issue and they CLEARLY tell you that it is the owner of the venue, not the DJ who is liable.

Yeah, and those boxes that pop up on computers CLEARLY tell you that the IRS is going arrest you if you don't call this number and give them your credit card. That doesn't make it true.

Or, for an example a little more on point with how BMI operates, police will often say something like "I'm going to need to come inside and look around". The implication is that they are legally allowed to enter simply by saying so, when this is completely untrue - they actually cannot come in at that point unless you signal your acceptance for them to enter. What happens is that 99% of people will step back and hold their door open for the officer after he says that, thus legally extending the officer an invitation to enter (even if the invitation was caused by an implied lie).

Sure the DJ may have claimed to have the licenses required, but the business owner is the one who is required to obtain the licenses.

BMI can state that the venue is responsible all they want, but if you read between the lines on what they actually say on their website, you can have DJs (or whoever) be responsible for the licensing, it's just that you may be liable if the DJ isn't properly licensed. If the terms of a contract with a DJ requires the DJ to be responsible for the music, then there's a good chance that's exactly how it will work - either by direct assignment of responsibility, or by being responsible for any damages the business incurs due to their negligence.

Simply put, BMI words their statement like this because they want to double-dip into the licensing revenue stream. Even if the DJ already has all the proper licenses to play it in whatever venue they want, BMI will use vague language about who needs the license and use scare tactics to try make venue owners pay again for licenses that have already been paid.

It is impossible to travel faster than light, and certainly not desirable, as one's hat keeps blowing off. -- Woody Allen