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


Forgot your password?

Comment: I mean... (Score 1) 55

by Travelsonic (#49706561) Attached to: MAME Changing License To Fully Libre One
I'm a little lost... why under the existing license would it be hard for the rightsholder to specific games to just go to the MAME team, and work it out? OF course, a more flexible, and open license is always a good thing IMO (too much rigidity hinders efforts that could be legal and good of course, but this specific example given still puzzled me.

And I wish they'd make some progress on Bemani System573 Digital emulation. :(

Comment: Re:Not Censorship (Score 1) 285

by Travelsonic (#49120325) Attached to: Google Knocks Explicit Adult Content On Blogger From Public View
Last I checked, no definition of censorship I know of requires a government entity be doing it. Self censorship, for example, is censorship by definition since you are keeping whatever - opinions, explicit outbursts, etc hidden or edited, but doing it on your own to yourself... it's still censorship though because of that editing, or hiding mechanism being in place. Now, if you tackle the issue from a "is it allowed" or even a "is Google morally allowed to do this" standpoint, the legal answer probably (IANAL) being yes, the moral answer being subjective, personal opinion...
tl;dr version:
  • - Whether it is censorship or not is not based on if the entity censoring is a government entity at all, but rather the act of editing or hiding information.
  • - This is a basic definition, something of that effect in pretty much every fucking dictionary definition
  • - All Google owning the servers means is they can censor certain things legally - whether it is moral or not IS up to opinion, but going by any textbook definition, it is still censorship.
  • - Why do I feel like the OP might be too stupid to understand all this?

Comment: Re:TSA = the USA's Gestapo (Score 1) 702

by Travelsonic (#47402991) Attached to: TSA Prohibits Taking Discharged Electronic Devices Onto Planes

True ... because asking you to turn on a dead cellphone is equivalent to throwing you in a concentration camp due to your political views without due process.

True... because the Nazis were known for throwing you in a concentration camp due to your political views without due process, that's ALL they did/were known for. *rolls eyes*

People who discount Nazi analogies purely because they think Nazis were only about the concentration camp, genocide aspect, and miss the buildup to that point and the things being put upon citizens, really need a better understanding - as there was more to them than just THAT specific act of horror, little things, a creep in power, the attitudes, the power grabs, and more.

Comment: Re:DC's decision is the right one (Score 1) 249

Its a slippery slope that DC is right to avoid with a flat out denial.

I see the potential for a slope, but that would be with the type of request IMO - and on that level you still have the power to say yes or no. So they would need to come up with some criteria, if they did, that would end the potential slope right there.

Comment: Hmmm... (Score 1) 138

by Travelsonic (#46978431) Attached to: Electric Stimulation Could Help You Control Your Dreams
I already dream in full color, and I shit you not, feel like I am able to use my senses - sound, sight, touch, smell, taste, etc, as if I were awake.

A while back, I had a dream where I found a shitload of cash - I recall in the dream saying "Let me put it in this draw,I'll get it later - and the person I was with saying "Yeah, but this is a dream, you'll look there and nothing will be there," to which I replied "Damn, you're right." I woke up after a few more things occurred in said dream, not as soon as I was aware I was dreaming. I was in control of my dream, aware I was dreaming, and this is just one example of things I go through almost every night.

Sometimes this is awesome, sometimes this is terrifying, sometimes it's neither extreme, just fun. To actually have more control

Comment: Re:...and this is our cue... (Score 1) 190

by Travelsonic (#46824779) Attached to: Eyes Over Compton: How Police Spied On a Whole City

Privacy in public is a contradiction
Yeah, if you believe privacy only equals physical privacy, which is ignorant - protip: Privacy != just physical, you have privacy of mind and thought - somebody asks you for your opinion on something for example, you need not say it, so IMO "privacy in public places doesn't exist" is only true if talking PHYSICAL privacy - without that quantifier, this is a bullshit notion, IMO

Comment: Care? (Score 1) 126

by Travelsonic (#46735017) Attached to: Photo Web Site Offers a Wall of Shame For Image Thieves
What measures are being taken to ensure they shame the right people? Get the wrong people, and defamation suits would prob. succeed. Look at, for a relevant-but-in-a-different-field example, the Griffin Black Book - listed poker players who counted cards as outright cheaters - which is untrue since the rules don't prohibit it, that's a casino policy [hint: not the same]. They sued, won, and the company - citing the lawsuit/outcome filed for bankruptcy.

Comment: Re:That's it (Score 1) 243

by Travelsonic (#46620903) Attached to: Dropbox's New Policy of Scanning Files For DMCA Issues

Yet again its forced outrage against basically something which is common sense

*sighs*... I hate these phrases - faux outrage, forced outrage, since they are used in the least applicable places. Misleading outrage isn't forced - it's still misleading, but it's still real. I's like when you mishear that somebody was banging your GF, and you momentarily get pissed before the person repeats themselves... the outrage in that split second was no less real.

Comment: Re:Sour grapes (Score 1) 381

by Travelsonic (#46506083) Attached to: <em>Sons of Anarchy</em> Creator On Google Copyright Anarchy

It's loss of opportunity to economically exploit one's work in both cases

Personally, just a side note, I've seen people use that alone to justify the position of it being theft - it annoys the hell outta me since the criterion those people use is idiotic - legitimate, legal competition does the same, but their reasoning would label it such. Heh, sidetracks from the discussion at hand, pay no mind. :P

Comment: So? (Score 1) 373

by Travelsonic (#46267495) Attached to: Report: Valve Anti-Cheat (VAC) Scans Your DNS History

...but all Steam users have agreed to abide by specific online conduct and not to use cheats.

Doesn't necessarily mean "any means necessarily" is necessarily what they agreed to, or legal - especially something to goes that far without being explicitly confined. *sighs* I wish people who cite the EULA, etc not as an argument, but as a shutout to opposing arguments would just shut up and learn that it doesn't cancel out all arguments, particularly since it being written doesn't necessarily mean it's legal, nor does it negate that people will/can have an opinion about it.

"Don't talk to me about disclaimers! I invented disclaimers!" -- The Censored Hacker