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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 34

1) Reform copyright terms to 5 years by default.

This severely penalises small content producers in favour of massive corporations, all a publisher needs to do is wait five years and they can leverage their marketing and distribution might to completely own a franchise while the original creator gets nada.

Comment Re:We already had one (Score 1) 42

If we're grading planets according to habitability, it's fairly binary - habitable or non habitable. Until we've mastered the effects of low or high gravity on people anything not almost exactly earthlike is going to be more effort for less return than a large space station. You might fine tune it a bit by adding a third category - habitable with modifications, like say a semi toxic atmosphere you can survive with air filters. Even then considering how much of the earth's atmosphere is a result of its biosphere the odds of finding an earth-compatible world without running into huge ethical problems regarding the disruption of its native life forms is minimal.

So here's my ad hoc categorisation scheme which no doubt the scientists involved have already superseded.

Class A: Completely human compatible, habitable and uninhabited.
Class B: Completely human compatible, inhabited by something.
Class C: Moderately human compatible, can be terraformed or colonists genetically engineered for unprotected compatability, uninhabited.
Class D: Moderately human compatible, can be terraformed or colonists genetically engineered for compatability, inhabited.
Class E: Inhabitable with sanctuary (sealed compartments, very difficult to develop, think Mars or the moon), uninhabited.
Class F: Inhabitable with sanctuary, inhabited.
Class G: Completely uninhabitable (like Jupiter).

Comment Re:Stronger IP protections (Score 1) 276

Until you sign a deal with a publishing company.

Many more people are self publishing nowadays than ever before. Seriously, they represent a significant percentage of the total publishing marketplace.

at the end of the day their copyright is still being signed over to a company and no longer owned by themselves.

That's not how copyright works unless they were creating work for hire. They still own it, they may sign an exclusive license but there's considerable legal debate over whether or not copyrights can be transferred or even made public at all, hence the existence of things like creative commons.

And if you go truly independent (as in, publish your own work,) and you find a copyright infringement.. you now have to somehow come up with the time (and potentially money) to fight for it.

Fortunately stronger legal protections as embodied by the DMCA make it relatively easy to have infringing works taken down immediately. If it looks like they were making money from your work, then sue them.

Remember that most of the big companies like Youtube have fast-track takedown policy for "trusted" publishers but an individual trying to get something taken down has a hell of a lot more trouble.

Nonsense, you may be thinking of the automated Content ID tool which draws on a library of copyrighted works for automatic comparison, but when a DMCA notice is sent infringing works get taken down.

Definitely an increase, but I'd say that has far more to do with the rise of internet distribution channels than it does to do with stricter copyright laws.

No doubt a contributing factor along with ubiquitous and cheap tools of creation but we can say at minimum that stronger protections haven't noticeably hindered creative output. For a graphic example of borderline illegal work check the booming mockbuster industry, which pretty much knocks any arguments about the suppression of derivative works on the head.

Sure they'd love to make a living from it but many if not most of them would still produce new works without financial incentive. Internet distribution means they now have an opportunity to distribute that work to a wider audience but again, a lot would do so regardless of whether or not they make money from it (and even with the stronger copyrights, there's a lot of people who post Youtube videos and fanfics and whatever other creative endeavors without any expectation of compensation. They just do it because they love it.)

Whatever gets you through the night, I suppose. Contrary to the opinion of people who've overwhelmingly never created anything in their lives, most artists who've put a lot of time and effort into their work get pretty riled when someone starts sharing their for-profit work for free. If they released something deliberately intending that it should be used as a business card that's a different matter, and of course someone who put in less effort is going to care less, but otherwise it's the surest way to piss someone off.

So we end up with a law that's only really beneficial to artists on paper and not in reality, while at the same time effectively criminalizing a large percentage of the population.

You've constructed a framework of half-truths, imagined circumstances and worst case scenarios in an effort to justify the masses taking advantage of the work of the few, which is precisely why we have laws. I'm not in favour of industry overreach like mass lawsuits or criminalising non-profit sharing, civil penalties are plenty, but really if you don't plan on infringing anyone's copyrights I dont see why you'd oppose stronger protections.

Comment Re:what about moving around people gumming up the (Score 1) 177

The only one "desperately begging for attention" here is you. It's the only rational explanation for your lengthy rantings. I'm hardly looking for attention... in fact I'd be very happy if you just went the hell away.

And your links to "lecturing scientists" are rather amusing... including the one where after all you had done was try to attack the messenger, I called you out on it.

The discussion here was not about the hotspot, and you didn't "debunk". You quoted one person's opinion.

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think.

I didn't lecture you about what you think. I asked you a question. Which you did not answer.

And you're the one here spouting about time machines, not me. I don't know what your schedule is, nor do I care. You didn't give me (or anyone) any actual evidence that it wasn't you. You just made the claim. I still find it strange how you project your own imaginings on others. It's an interesting (if unsociable) habit.

Now, if you wanted FINALLY get to the actual subject that was under discussion, then by all means: show me that John Cook is not in fact a cartoonist. Or show us that...

Abstracts were randomly distributed via a web-based system to raters with only the title and abstract visible. All other information such as author names and affiliations, journal and publishing date were hidden. Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters.

... as claimed in the paper was true. Show us that the #3 author did not write this in their online forum:

"We have already gone down the path of trying to reach a consensus through the discussions of particular cases. From the start we would never be able to claim that ratings were done by independent, unbiased, or random people anyhow."

Or that Jose Duarte's summation is false:

There appears to be no question that they knew, well before submitting the paper, that they had not implemented independent ratings, since as she mentioned, they were discussing particular papers in the forums the whole time. Yet, they still reported in their article that they used independent raters. What is this?

Those are the only relevant issues discussed in my comments, and you haven't addressed one of them. Yes, you did lose the argument. So what did you do as a result? Admit you were wrong? Apologize? NO, you came here and wrote a page of whines like a child, trying to make me look bad again.


And finally, stop sock-puppeting as Anonymous Coward. It makes even you look bad.

Comment Re:EXT4 support in Marshmallow (Score 1) 207

Android finally gets EXT4 support in Marshmallow to provide real and wonderful dupport for SDCards, and suddenly Ubuntu goes ZFS. There may be many advantages with ZFS. Matching that of the worlds largest OS doesn't hurt

And when Andriod gets ZFS, we'll be ready for when those 256 zebibyte SD cards come out.

Comment Re:Why Linux does what he does (Score 1) 621

Furthermore, should something like this be omitted simply because Linus doesn't like it? Is his opinion the only one that counts? Among other things, securelevel is used to implement "jails" but the functionality can be completely disabled (securelevel = -1) -- so Linus can turn it off if he wants.

But I can definitely guarantee you that Linus is not someone who makes decisions for random reasons and there is a reason why he doesn't want securelevel in the kernel.

According to TFS it's because (and I'm quoting here) "Linus has an undying hatred of BSD securelevel". So, sure, Linus has a reason. Whether it's actually a good reason, other than "undying hatred" is another matter. I was just commenting on the the summary and referenced articles.

Comment Re:securelevel who? (Score 2) 621

Furthermore, should something like this be omitted simply because Linus doesn't like it? Is his opinion the only one that counts?

Since he is the repo owner, yes, his opinion is the only one that counts in the end.

Ya, I get that, but it doesn't really answer my question of "should". One person can have a great vision, but that doesn't mean it's the only great vision.

Comment Re:Facebook SHOULD require real names (Score 1) 230

I do not harass or abuse people. (excepting lawyers, trolls, politicians, religious nuts, math failures & the RIAA)

That's okay, I don't consider those as "people" either.

If you can make Soylent Green from them, they're still "people".

Comment Re:Making money off real names (Score 1) 230

If they aren't already. Not to go all tinfoil hat, but in many ways, I've always felt that Facebook operates very much like an intelligence agency. They do everything they can to vacuum up every single bit of personal information about you they can, including who you talk to, what you do, what you like, etc... The biggest difference is in who they provide the information to, and why.

I'm sure the traditional Intelligence services can buy data from Facebook just like any other client. Sure it *may* be anonymized, but those agencies can probably merge it quite easily with data they have from other sources.

Comment Re:securelevel who? (Score 5, Interesting) 621

Just for the people who don't know what the fuck securelevel is (NetBSD's flavor in this case)

Not going back to Linux, but this really is a worthwhile addition.

Furthermore, should something like this be omitted simply because Linus doesn't like it? Is his opinion the only one that counts? Among other things, securelevel is used to implement "jails" but the functionality can be completely disabled (securelevel = -1) -- so Linus can turn it off if he wants.

Is the direction in which Linux is driven simply the whim of people like Linus and Lennart who dictate "my way or the highway"? They are smart, capable, talented people, but not omniscient Gods - despite what they and some others might think.

Comment Re:This ruling won't fix anything (Score 3, Interesting) 196

If they're forced to hand over the data they won't be in business in the EU for long, which considering the enormous size and wealth of the EU is going to hurt any company badly, so I guess they'll have to open seperate competing European branches. Either that or the US government is going to have to play nice with the rest of the world.

Nothing recedes like success. -- Walter Winchell