Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The facade (Score 1) 353

by ebyrob (#49572113) Attached to: University Overrules Professor Who Failed Entire Management Class

I spent enough time working and studying in college. I certainly didn't need to put in time "pretending" to learn the way some out of his element ivory tower type thought I should learn his material. Thankfully, when I was in college, the engineering professors pretty much ignored all the pretense that had been upheld in grammar and high-school about learning.

Perhaps because they had themselves studied long and hard enough about something substantial to know that lectures are hardly an efficient method in the first place.

Comment: Re:Good (Score 2) 302

I'm not entirely sure you're not trolling, but I'll bite anyway.

The US Constitution states that the purpose of copyright is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", artists and inventors may be granted a (temporary, limited) exclusive right to their work. Anytime copyright comes up among my group of friends (who include a large number of writers, musicians, and graphical artists, in addition to programmers) copyright is a fairly contentious issue. I tend to like to argue the position that any "common", mass produced work that is unavailable for public purchase for longer than one year has outlived its' salable value and should lose copyright protection. (This is particularly true in the age of digital distribution, where "shelf space" is a non-issue.) Fine art (where only one copy of the item ever gets created) clearly requires a different definition for copyright term, but for the things which usually are referenced in these debates online -- CDs, mass market books, newsclippings, etc. -- a strictly limited term is far more beneficial to keeping works available to the public.

Comment: Re:They should be doing the opposite (Score 4, Insightful) 309

> Having copyright terms that uniform across international boarders is useful.

Useful as an excuse to ping-pong term extensions across the Atlantic. Terms are extending 20 years every 20 years, hardly "limited times" let alone "promoting progress".

Comment: Re:Well guys if you were passed over for a positio (Score 1) 517

I don't think I dare look at your link right now, but your question has been answered. To quote from that Wikipedia article: "The lead plaintiff was Frank Ricci, who had been a firefighter at the New Haven station for 11 years. ... Because he has dyslexia, he paid an acquaintance $1,000 to read his textbooks onto audiotapes." (Emphasis mine.)

Make whatever noises you like: just because a person is part of the privileged class in the two most visible categories of discrimination (race & gender) doesn't exclude them from being a member of any other legally protected class.

Comment: Re:Libertarianism, the new face of the GOP? (Score 1) 441

by Catiline (#49471347) Attached to: Republicans Introduce a Bill To Overturn Net Neutrality

I'm sure you know about Westinghouse and Edison setting up parallel electricity networks in New York, but it was even more extreme for the telegraph. In 1850 there were 75 telegraph companies, ten of which served New York; in 1866 there was only one. ... The government mostly stepped in *after* these natural monopolies formed, to keep them from abusing their power,

False. Since you specifically mentioned New York, here's an article about how that technology developed. Specifically, it states that "To encourage growth in this new electricity infrastructure, New York, like all of the other states, protected the utilities’ investment by granting them an exclusive right to serve customers." (Emphasis mine.) Believe what you want about the importance of monopoly busting, but the sad truth is that for every common example people give of "natural" monopolies, the government had a hand in why the service in question is a monopoly market.

Comment: Re:How is bigotry a good thing? (Score 1) 1168

by ebyrob (#49372983) Attached to: Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory

The freedom to think. What is that now freedom -1?

All "Hate Crime" laws have at their foundation an attempt to control the very thoughts of others. By contrast, the founders of the US realized governments which had "less power" "less control" over their citizens were generally "less oppressive".

I hate to think what a government with the power to control my very thoughts would be like.

My world view says there is only one most difficult and important thing I can change about the world. Myself.

Comment: Re:Default Government Stance (Score 3, Insightful) 194

by ebyrob (#49166667) Attached to: Feds Admit Stingray Can Disrupt Bystanders' Communications

What part of "Congress shall make no law..." don't you understand? That these "federal laws" are even on the books is just proof of how far we've strayed from constitutional government. That everything nowadays is just wedged under the "commerce clause" is the tip of the Hindenburg.

Comment: Re:WTF? (Score 1) 493

Pretty odd that the "outsiders" could pick out and favor the girls without knowing anything about them, even which name goes with which paper.

Of course, it could be down to better hand-writing by the girls, but hey. Handwriting (communication) is very important even in STEM pursuits.

The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Paul Erlich