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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:There ARE other kinds of values. Movies!=money. (Score 1) 299

by denzacar (#49546123) Attached to: Joseph Goebbels' Estate Sues Publisher Over Diary Excerpt Royalties

That's because the Greek poets, the apostles, and William Shakespeare died more than 70 years ago. For example, translations of the Bible into modern language are still copyrighted.

NOPE.
It's because culture, cultural artifacts and works by there very nature have no expiration date - unlike humans who are limited by their mortality.

You are confusing the rule we came up with to try to harness that natural quality of cultural works in order to monetize them - with the reason for the existence of said rules in the first place.
I.e. You're engaging in circular reasoning where "old works can't belong to one person - because authors died so long ago that copyright ran out".

Which is another way of saying "There is no copyright - because it ran out".
Which is an ignoratio elenchi claim regarding the issue why " works of CULTURE AND ART AND STORYTELLING... can [NOT] ultimately belong to one person or a group of persons".

I.e. That it is THAT very property... attribute... of the works of culture to transcend any physical limitations through which mortal humans might try to limit access to such works in order to monopolize their value - WHY we had do come up with the idea of copyright.
Cause you can't expunge information and ideas from someone's mind.

You can't physically unhear a song or unsee an image or force others to do so if they don't want to pay for experiencing that work of culture.
You can only create a rule that they MUST pay.

I really can't go into other "points" you make there, other than to point out that they are all based on more ignoratio elenchi.
That is, ignoring that I am making points on WHY we have copyright laws instead of the HOW - i.e. particular nature and implementation of such laws.
Sorry.

Comment: Re:Habeus Corpus (Score 1) 332

by denzacar (#49545789) Attached to: Update: No Personhood for Chimps Yet

Animals don't have responsibilities, so why should they have rights?

Close.
Animals are incapable of being held responsible.

Much like children or mentally challenged (i.e. retarded) humans who are not in control of their faculties or incapable of understanding or holding on to agreements, rules and contracts, including but not limited to social contracts.

A human child is literally millions of years ahead of a chimp in mental development, but no one with any sense would dream of treating a child as an adult, capable of agreeing to or signing contracts.
Including those that the society one is born into has established for that child centuries and millennia ago.
Do not steal, do not kill, do not attack other people, don't light fires on the carpet...

Accepting those preestablished societal RULES (i.e. responsibilities) is the basis of having RIGHTS - or the society puts you in a cage.
Or, if you are REALLY incapable of following rules, keep hurting others and live in a place which practices a death penalty - society kills you to protect others from you.

And while you CAN explain such abstract concepts as good and bad to children or retarded adults, and have them obey the rules based on those concepts, you can't do that with animals.

You start treating animals like humans, you better plan for mass killing of said animals.
Cause that's where it ends at, very quickly - as they CAN'T FOLLOW HUMAN RULES AND REGULATIONS.
They will continue to break the rules they can't even understand, you will continue to punish them for that, until you either end up killing them or you get them to try to kill you.
At which point someone will HAVE TO kill them.

Comment: Re:Why the hate for VB (Score 1) 175

by Xest (#49543575) Attached to: Swift Tops List of Most-Loved Languages and Tech

You seem obsessed with the idea that programming languages are better if they're close to English, but this is a long debunked theory so you're living in the 70s/80s on that one. If closeness to English was an overriding priority then we'd all be using COBOL.

We don't however, because regardless of closeness to English we still have to learn the syntax, and if we have to learn the syntax either way then we read code as if it is English. Anyone that knows C style syntax can read your C style example just as easily as they read plain English, and yet the VB style syntax requires you to parse a double negative which is bad English.

As such, all you're left with with VB is bug inducing double negative mindfucks, and increase unnecessary verbosity resulting in lower productivity.

It boils down to this:

"Is not equal to null"

vs.

"Is not nothing"

The former is perfect English, the latter is terrible, broken English.

The only way you can have a programming language that works with plain English is by allowing it to have a large number of keyword combinations, so that you can express "Is not nothing" as "Is something". Until you do that attempts to create a programming language in plain English are a long verified dead end.

Don't try and pretend my example was intended to be anything other than an example of VB's terrible syntax and verbosity. If I was creating a demonstration of great coding style I'd stay out of any VB discussion in the first place because VB is the antithesis of that. There is nothing readable about VB's syntax because it's broken English end to end and that gets in the way of clean syntax that can be read logically.

Have fun writing low readability code with your reduced levels of productivity if you enjoy spitting out such unnecessary verbosity if that's your thing, but don't try and pretend it's superior. There's a reason VB is hated and unpopular, and that's because it's shit for the reasons I've described here, if you think otherwise it's not because you're some super coder who just sees something no other coder gets, it's just that you're an inept VB fanboy.

Comment: Re:Why the hate for VB (Score 1) 175

by Xest (#49518395) Attached to: Swift Tops List of Most-Loved Languages and Tech

Because VB brings us such fucking abominations as:

If myVar IsNot Nothing AndAlso myVar = "something" Then
' do something
End If

The problem with VB is in it's attempts to be English like it's just ended up requiring you to spout nonsense. No one says "Is not nothing", they say "Is something".

It's too verbose and ends up forcing you to write stuff that's inherently less readable than if it didn't try and fudge English into it's syntax.

Comment: Re:Test of Time (Score 1) 175

by Xest (#49518351) Attached to: Swift Tops List of Most-Loved Languages and Tech

Whilst I don't really know anything about Swift, what the GP describes makes it sound like the features he's describing are basically exact copies of the way C# does things.

If so, then what you describe isn't really correct. In recent versions of C# you can simply declare a variable with "var". The situation you describe where it determines something to be an integer when you wanted a string shouldn't be an issue because in C# what would happen is the initial assignment of an int would have the compiler treat it as an int, and then any subsequent attempt to use it as a string would throw a compiler error because the compiler already figured out that it's an int by that point.

So you still declare your variables, you just let the compiler automatically determine the type.

This said however, I'm still not a fan of it, I don't like C#'s var keyword. It makes it easy for sloppy developers to write code quickly, but it kills readability and maintainability for other developers, because they have to expend effort figuring out what type the variable is actually meant to be rather than being able to just look at the definition to see what it's actually declared as.

It's a feature that's been added in to try and woo sloppy developers, but frankly all it does is reduce the average level of code quality by allowing people to write such sloppy code in the first place.

Comment: Re:Ehhh What ? (Score 1) 157

by Xest (#49517635) Attached to: Mandelbrot Zooms Now Surpass the Scale of the Observable Universe

It's not an unreasonable viewpoint given that we can use math to describe universes that physically could not exist.

Math obviously exists outside of those particular universes, thus, one must reasonably conclude that either math can exist outside of any particular universe, or that for some reason some universes, such as ours (or perhaps only ours), are special cases where math exists.

Comment: Re:Unless (Score 1) 299

by Xest (#49517537) Attached to: Joseph Goebbels' Estate Sues Publisher Over Diary Excerpt Royalties

"As a nation is not an individual any more than a corporation is a person, your analogy is completely invalid."

Not in the context of the point I'm making it's not. The fact is, when you are outnumbered by a far more powerful group of people, they ultimately get to declare what is law. It doesn't matter if that's happening at individual or state level- the point is that in that circumstance it's no longer your call what is deemed to be a criminal act and what is not.

Goebbel's was on the losing side, the allies got to declare what was and wasn't a criminal act. You may not like this, you may detest the whole concept of international law, but that's really irrelevant to my point - my point is merely that Goebbel's was defined as a criminal by the people who got to define him as such in a manner no different to the fact that a murderer is defined as a murder by the people who get to define him as such.

You mention the right to conquest, and that's ultimately why the allies got to do what they got to do, whatever your personal opinion on the rights or wrongs of it. They could just as well declare things as criminal acts retroactively as well as they could have legalised the extermination of all Germans as they saw fit if they chose to. Fundamentally the argument that Goebbels wasn't a criminal because what he did wasn't a crime at the time he did it is irrelevant, because his side lost the war, and any determinations of legality the Nazis made were replaced and overruled by the conquering powers.

Comment: Re:Unless (Score 1) 299

by Xest (#49510717) Attached to: Joseph Goebbels' Estate Sues Publisher Over Diary Excerpt Royalties

I guess that depends how key he was in the war in the first place. If the war hadn't have happened without his actions then yes, you can reasonably put the rest of the deaths at his doorstep.

Of course, that's a big if, and really, I think it can only ever be a subjective thing - different people will have different views.

A similar debate has been had about George Bush's actions in Iraq. Given that the whole war and destabilisation of the region resulted from his actions in 2003, is he or is he not (jointly?) responsible for the million+ deaths in Iraq that have happened as a result of that destabilisation ever since?

You could argue that it might have happened anyway without his actions, but you could similarly argue that might is irrelevant, we should only judge on what did happen rather than what might have happened.

So again, ultimately, the answer to that is going to be a very personal one with no objective right or wrong.

Comment: Re:Unless (Score 1) 299

by Xest (#49510655) Attached to: Joseph Goebbels' Estate Sues Publisher Over Diary Excerpt Royalties

Depending on their acts, yes you can. It's called a war crime.

You see, just as individual people within a state don't get to determine the law against the will of the people around them when those acts affect them individual states don't get to determine the law against the will of the countries around them when they affect them either.

So if you're in charge of a country that starts a war and loses, you better damn well believe that those countries you lost to get to lay down the law on you. Just as you shouldn't commit murder against your neighbours and expect no consequences, you shouldn't wage a war against your neighbours and expect no consequences. Goebbels was a key actor in the losing side of a devastating war. The winning side declared him to be a war criminal and that's that. It's not like protection against libel or slander even exists for dead people in most countries anyway, so really, you can declare him whatever the fuck you want regardless.

Had his side won the war then yes, he could reasonably have been in a position to declare international law on the issue. He didn't, so he couldn't. The post-war establishment of international institutions for dealing with this sort of thing in a less ad-hoc manner led to courts such as the ECHR and more recently the ICC which have seen prosecutions of various war criminals.

Comment: Re:Unless (Score 1) 299

by Xest (#49510533) Attached to: Joseph Goebbels' Estate Sues Publisher Over Diary Excerpt Royalties

"I don't really care one way or the other regarding the number, but I will never believe in any truth that comes with a prison sentence for nonbelievers."

Well it doesn't come with a prison sentence here in the UK, so does that mean you do believe it or what? Regardless, you're being overly dramatic all the same. There is no prison sentence in Europe for disputing the number of people who died in World War II, which is what the OP was talking about. What there are prison sentences for are for advocating Nazi ideology and propaganda in a handful of European states which isn't quite the same thing.

"As for evolution, you need to learn about science. It is a hypothesis I consider almost certainly correct, but it has never been observed."

Then it's not him that needs to learn about science, it's you. Evolution is neither a mere hypothesis, nor has it never been observed. You can observe evolution in various species of bacteria, and short lived creatures like fruit flies.

He's not demanding blind faith, he's just asking that you not be wilfully stupid. There's a wide gulf between the two things and you are very clearly guilty of wilful stupidity due to the fact you are so demonstrably wrong yet choose to persist with that.

Given that the numbers of people you have supposedly heard die in World War II are much lower than those commonly cited to have died, and given that you are spouting nonsense about an area of science you clearly do not know even the slightest thing about, have you perhaps considered that any persecution towards you real or perceived exists not because of your beliefs, but because of your ignorance and bullshit?

Comment: Re:Unless (Score 1) 299

by Xest (#49510397) Attached to: Joseph Goebbels' Estate Sues Publisher Over Diary Excerpt Royalties

I suggest you look back even further, it's been going on at least 1000 years in Europe. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

Judaism was the only religion at the time that allowed for loans with interest, Christianity did not. As such, the Jews were the only ones allowed to do this banking (and were largely persecute and blocked from other forms of employment, so did it because it was all they were often allowed to do).

As it became clear they were making a lot of money doing this, successive monarchs started to tax them more and more, until they were living in poverty once more before ultimately committing widespread massacres against them and expelling them from the UK.

It's not just in the last century that Jewish people have been pushed into markets like banking only to be persecuted when someone needed a scapegoat. It's been happening for at least 1000 years and what happened in Nazis Germany in the 1930s and 40s is a repeat of what happened in England in the 1200s.

Apparently we never learn.

Comment: Re:Gameplay is king (Score 1) 150

It's just Battlefield 4 in the Star Wars universe. All of this including the great visuals already exist in Battlefield 4 since about 18 months ago.

The upside is this is star wars, which makes it awesome. Let's just hope that it actually works, unlike BF4 which was broken and buggy for months after release, and still to this day has some launch day bugs present in it.

Even BF3 before it had most of this stuff from a gameplay perspective so I don't really see anything new or groundbreaking here, but I'm happy it's being made, because I love BF3 and BF4 (well, when it works), and I love Star Wars.

The only downside to this game is no single player, and I don't think I've ever bought a multiplayer only game (excluding MMOs) and enjoyed it because no proper single player is typically just code for "Half-arsed game, we couldn't be arsed to put much effort into and want to make a quick buck from." - I've found this to so far be a universal truth, from Quake III to Titanfall. Let's hope this is the exception that breaks the rule.

Comment: Re:And the point is? (Score 3, Insightful) 62

by denzacar (#49506113) Attached to: If Earth Never Had Life, Continents Would Be Smaller

Shutting the mouths of all those "Leave Earth alone!!!" nutcases arguing that it is humanity's duty to reduce it's numbers until it is not a burden to the planet?

That, and being actual... you know... science.
Instead of... you know... a straw man troll in the same vein as "Why is this news for nerds?"

Comment: There ARE other kinds of values. Movies!=money. (Score 2) 299

by denzacar (#49505147) Attached to: Joseph Goebbels' Estate Sues Publisher Over Diary Excerpt Royalties

Seems like all movies that profit off of heinous acts should have to go to repay the victims of their crimes.

In ALL cases, every single one, EVER - victims became victims cause nobody heard or acted upon their cries for help.
Victims are acutely aware of that.

And they are aware of how valuable and invaluable it is to just have someone tell their story to the world.
Even if it is told badly. Like with "Mississippi Burning".
Which beats almost every single movie about Vietnam war - a war that was totally only about Americans and how THEY suffered.

Which again beats every single movie NOT made about Jeju uprising, regarding the mass executions, burning of villages, rape and the following coverup which lasted for some 60 years.
In a friendly, forward thinking, western democracy of South Korea.
Just like the Bodo League massacre and systematic mass execution of hundreds of thousands of "communist sympathizers".
Covered up for over 40 years... and clearly not considered a big deal.
Not big enough to warrant a movie, anyway.

Movies, like books, are primarily works of CULTURE AND ART AND STORYTELLING - and neither of those can ultimately belong to one person or a group of persons any more than the works of Shakespeare or the Bible or the Greek myths do.
Someone can own a block of wood with a Mona Lisa painted on it - but no one can own Mona Lisa no more than anyone can own the letter 'A'.

That's why we have copyright laws.
To assure that those who create/produce that cultural wealth FOR EVERYONE get paid something in exchange for their effort in creating something that is only valuable if everyone has free access to it.
Because you can't stop someone from seeing a movie or hearing a song - not if you ever want to make money out of showing them a movie or playing them a song.
It must be free and available to everyone so you could charge money for it.
Jerry Lewis can't charge people money for "The Day the Clown Cried". Even if he wanted to. Or if they did. And though they do.

Human art is designed to be appreciated and experienced and absorbed by other humans.
If it wasn't so easy for humans to experience that art and culture without paying or even trying (just quiz yourself about a movie you are not at all interested in - like Twilight or 50 Shades of Gray) no regulation would be needed.
Hell... you can chase down a thief and make him either burn up the calories in that apple he stole from you, beat it out of him or make him throw it up.
No amount of force or persuasion can make someone unwatch a movie or unhear a song. Sadly, in many cases.

So we have laws to try to make sure that at least some people pay for what they willingly experience.

BUT... as those laws are about monetary compensation to the creators of that art, we are fed a story that it is "all about the money" and that the movies are "just business".
Which is not true even for the most commercial of all art - pornography.
We can joke that it does not matter as long as there's sex in it - but we can't ignore the fact that there are porn STARS, and then there are "others".

Meaning that even with a movie that is so cheap to produce, both artistically and monetarily, where actor's skills are down to simple physical attributes and looks, and which is produced to satisfy such a base need - people will demand more than just a "recording of two people fucking for money".

And people will favor those who produce more than just a "recording" - thus creating popularity and fame for those performers who do "more than just recording".
That favoritism will not create MORE money though. It will only cut out of the picture those who produce only "recordings".

Even in such an utterly commercial field of film making, the goal is towards more than just money and money earned alone does not equal success nor is it the ultimate and only goal of producing the movie.

Movies are about art and culture and telling stories...
And that is where the victims of massacres and crimes get "compensated" - their story gets told.
Even if told badly, at least it allows them the opportunity to criticize the story told and instead tell their version to the world - who is now primed to listen.

Cause it is not about the money for the victims either. You can't pay someone back for a genocide or rape or dead and murdered relatives.
You CAN tell their story though.

A rolling disk gathers no MOS.

Working...