Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:There ARE other kinds of values. Movies!=money. (Score 1) 300

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.

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.

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?

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:And the point is? (Score 3, Insightful) 63

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) 300

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.

Comment: Re:c'mon (Score 0, Troll) 306

by denzacar (#49402421) Attached to: Al Franken Urges FBI To Prosecute "Revenge Porn"

A girl at my daughter's high school was a victim of revenge porn. She killed herself.

Sounds more like she was a victim of suicide. Caused by mental illness.
And yes.
I am saying that anyone who decides to kill themselves because of their "honor and reputation" being "sullied" is either mentally ill or a fucking moron. Or both.

This is not 1st century B.C.
"Fate worse than death" and such shit is a retarded concept relegated to myth and bodice ripper literature.
Or religious fanaticism.

If anyone, people parroting such messages of "OMG! Reputation!" to others should be put on trial for endangerment of mentally inept persons in their care.
If someone's solution to trolling is suicide, that someone needs professional help.
If their relatives/caretakers just shrugs off such obvious mental issues - they should be investigated and if possible prevented from doing similar harm in the future.

That is far from an isolated case.

By definition, what you are describing is a VERY isolated, ANECDOTAL case.
Unless you have some well researched data pointing to an epidemic of kids offing themselves, clearly caused by someone they were dumb enough to let into their pants later posting a photo of their wee-wee without permission.
And not something else... like undiagnosed mental illness and/or shitty parenting.

Also, it is bullshit. If it were true there'd be a huge Facebook-Twitter-whatever spike.
There isn't one. The rate of suicide among teens is pretty steady, and it is among lower rates.
Suicide rate also generally being FAR higher among males.

So your "not an isolated case" is PURE UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT!

To suggest that this isn't traumatic, and that the victims somehow deserve it, is asinine.

To suggest that there is an epidemic of pixel-related suicides is a vile and dishonest setup of a straw man.
So is implying blame of "attacking a victim" on anyone saying otherwise.
And same goes for putting words in other people's mouth.

On the other hand, all that bullshit straw man argumentation does not refute the fact that it is prudent to practice restraint with recordings of one's private parts or actions one does not want the whole world to see.

Also, suggesting that it was sextrolling that caused the suicide and not some other underlying issue...
That's not just counterproductive - that's perpetuating a "suicide as solution for stained honor" myth.

People will go on for decades with untreated PTSD and years with clinical depression before they decide to "end it all".
That's suffering daily mental torture and still pushing on.
But a naked photo posted online will make a sane person snap instantly?

There is something VERY wrong with your view of the world if you believe that happy crap.

Comment: He also has a warehouse somewhere... (Score 5, Interesting) 360

by denzacar (#49383511) Attached to: Why More 'Star Wars' Actors Don't Become Stars

...full of Star Wars toys.

That guy he plays in that Amazing Stories episode - that's him in real life + acting career. 268 credits on imdb.

Anyway... It was mentioned in one of Kevin Smith's "Fatman on Batman" podcasts.
Hamill asked if he could have one of every toys they were going to make. He thought it would be kinda cool.
Imagine that, you know. You're in a movie, and they make a toy that's you in a movie... Crazy, I know!
Nobody gave it a second thought, so they included that bit in his contract.

One of every Star Wars toys. Ever.

Comment: Power efficiency not a priority. (Score 1) 198

They are not designed with power efficiency in mind. They are designed to be functional, fashionable and cheap to produce.
So, though the same setup could be designed with more power-efficient components or solutions...
Why bother about a Watt or two or twenty lost on standby on a product that uses hundreds or thousands of Watts when working, right?

I think that my favorite on that list is the gas range that uses on average 1.13 Watts per hour on standby.
GAS range. As in... it doesn't run on electricity.

That's about 6-15 kilowatts wasted every year, per household.
Just so one could light the highly flammable gas with a press of a button instead of with a match or one of those piezoelectric gas lighters.

Comment: PP seems to have a... "filtered" view of things... (Score 1) 365

The proper verdict would have been to destroy both the KP partners and Pao as they all horrible human beings.
The partner (?)...
given to a loser...
Indian sleazebag...
an utter whore and slut...
All I can say is, "Kill them with fire. All of them."

As for this part:

1. The partner (?) who did not want to invite the women in the company to a getaway with Al Gore because it would "kill the buzz." The buzz would be killed because the excluded party were women, not because they were unpleasant people.

And about that Al Gore dinner, Chien said that only 10 people could fit in the former vice president's living room, and only three of them were affiliated with Kleiner Perkins. Pao herself had actually suggested some invitees who were male: The CEOs of Yelp and Dropbox.

Chien insisted he'd never said anything about women killing the buzz. "Absolutely not," he said. Pao's filing was "the first time I had ever heard of the phrase."

And about the all-guy ski trip? Chien said he'd actually invited fellow Kleiner colleague Mary Meeker, but she couldn't make it. And besides, she has her own house in the area, he said.

Could Path founder Dave Morin invite a female entrepreneur from a Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers portfolio company on the firm's 2012 ski trip to Colorado, organized by then senior partner Chi-Hua Chien?

He could not, Chien said. As he explained in an email at the time, "The issue is that we are staying in condos, and I was thinking that gents wouldn't mind sharing, but gals might. Why don't we punt on her and find 2 guys who are awesome. We can add 4-8 women next year."
There were no women on the 2012 ski trip, and there would be no ski trip the next year.

Comment: 48 Better Shelters fit in a 40â(TM) HQ contai (Score 2) 71

by denzacar (#49362167) Attached to: Ikea Refugee Shelter Entering Production

More from TFS:

Logistically friendly and easy to build

Better Shelter will arrive in two cardboard boxes which are packed in subsequent building order.
The two boxes can be individually lifted by four people and contain an assembly instruction image manual, which lets you assemble the shelter, together with three other people in 4-8 hours.
Better Shelter is built in three sub-sequential steps:

        Roof with ventilation and solar panel
        Walls with windows and door

Better Shelter is optimized to meet the high volume production condiÂtions and flat pack logistic demands required to be cost efficient.

"I have more information in one place than anybody in the world." -- Jerry Pournelle, an absurd notion, apparently about the BIX BBS