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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:or stop hiding... (Score 2) 377

by djmurdoch (#46236849) Attached to: Assange's Lawyers: Follow Swedish Law, Interrogate Him In the UK

If he'd really thought that he wouldn't have run off to hide in an embassy - he'd have waited for any indictment then played it out in court THEN gone to an embassy if things looked bad.

You do know that the British courts have already decided to extradite him to Sweden, don't you? He didn't run off to the embassy until his appeal of the extradition failed.

Comment: Re:Giant Bomb (Score 1) 361

by djmurdoch (#46185473) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Online News Is Worth Paying For?

they aren't going to publish things just to make one advertiser happy

I was referring to the fallout from the giant bomb that hit GameSpot

Doesn't that support my claim? That is, GameSpot did adjust its editorial policy just to make one advertiser happy, and it imploded. Hence no *rational* company would do that.

Comment: Re:Conflict of interest (Score 1) 361

by djmurdoch (#46181865) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Online News Is Worth Paying For?

If the newspaper has more than one subscriber, it has a conflict of interest. Your interests won't match the other subscriber's.

They aren't going to publish things just to make you happy; they aren't going to publish things just to make one advertiser happy. We're talking about the NYT, not some trade magazine that depends for all its revenue on one sponsor.

Comment: Re:NYT for me, but paying somewhere is important (Score 2) 361

by djmurdoch (#46160923) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Online News Is Worth Paying For?

if we don't pay for it, who will?

Advertisers?

who ever pays for it gets to decide what goes in

You said you pay for the NYT. Do they let you determine what articles to include? Only to the extent that if they do a bad job, you won't renew your subscription. If advertisers were paying, the same would be true: they won't get eyeballs if they don't have content that attracts them.

Comment: Re:WTF... (Score 1) 279

by djmurdoch (#46033843) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: Any CLA Is Fundamentally Broken

But coming back to the beginning of the thread: Even though the GPL2 is perfectly valid, the FSF has declared in GPL3 that it is not a compatible license. Through their required copyright transfer, they are able to change the license on their projects from GPL2 to GPL3, thereby putting pressure on other GPL2 projects to relicense as well. That's not promoting freedom, that's promoting control.

Comment: Re:WTF... (Score 0) 279

by djmurdoch (#46019613) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: Any CLA Is Fundamentally Broken

Canonical vs the FSF is a matter of degree, it's not incomparable.

If the FSF didn't require copyright assignment, then most GNU stuff would still be GPL2 licensed, and that would make my life easier. Moglen says they need the copyright assignment in order to defend the copyright, but really it has mainly been used as a club to try to force people to switch to GPL3. It's about power, not about freedom.

Comment: Re:Not the sun (Score 1) 320

by djmurdoch (#46009123) Attached to: Solar Lull Could Cause Colder Winters In Europe

Okay, so I read the story there about flooding in Somerset. The article itself is pretty reasonable, but many of the replies to it met the characterization of "only one cause":

"The EA was taken over by environmentalists years ago."

"The UK EA ... was created by Blair to promote the myth of CAGW."

There's no possibility that the lack of dredging is due to budget cutting or a lack of a need for dredging now that the rivers aren't used for barges any more (I don't know if they ever were), it's the AGW proponents who caused it. And there's no possibility that the floods have multiple causes, not just the lack of dredging. For example, places that used to be swamps tend to subside as the water is taken out.

Comment: Re:what i've always wondered, as a non-medical per (Score 1) 1038

by djmurdoch (#45993471) Attached to: Controversial Execution In Ohio Uses New Lethal Drug Combination

Not at all. Blackmail is where you threaten to reveal something that the victim doesn't want to be known. The USA is quite open about the fact that it executes people.

This is more like shunning. You're doing something I don't like, so I won't deal with you.

Comment: Re:Would of been impressed if (Score 1) 464

I don't understand why the court is using assumptions (i.e. "we have no evidence of this person using Glass while driving"), when they can simply figure out the truth by sending a subpoena to Google to request that information (given that Glass is surely phoning home all the time).

It's not the court's job to collect evidence. If no evidence of use was presented, then there's no evidence, and the ticket is dismissed.

So why didn't the investigating officer collect this data? It's a distracted driving ticket, not a murder investigation.

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Working...