Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Consume Only Content You Can Legally Share (Score 1) 131

There is still a valid law in England which says you have to practice archery weekly.


In 1845, "An Act to Amend the Law concerning Games and Wagers" repealed any part of King Henry’s 1541 law making any “Game of Skill” unlawful or “which enacts any Penalty for lacking Bows or Arrows . . . or which regulates the making, selling, or using of Bows and Arrows . . . .” 8 & 9 Vict., c.109 (1845); see also Statute Law Revision Act, 26 & 27 Vict. c.125 (1863) (repealing the 1511 law)

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 393

Look at a bestsellers' list from 20 years ago and see if you recognise any of them.

Just the ones I've read:
GERALD'S GAME, by Stephen King
THE PELICAN BRIEF, by John Grisham

The ones I recognize but have not read:
WAITING TO EXHALE, by Terry McMillan
DARK FORCE RISING, by Timothy Zahn

I'm all for cutting back the length of copyright, but I believe it's only fair to allow authors to be paid during their lifetime.

Comment Re: Butcher's pricing (Score 1) 299

Not only that, but look at the collections. Books 1-6 are sold as a collection and priced at $59.99. That's still $10 per book. If that price were lowered, the number of people pirating his stuff would be reduced.

Comment Re:Not just an exercise in consumerism (Score 1) 239

I think part of the problem is this whole Black Friday/Cyber Monday mentality that we have now. People will buy shit, because it's now cheaper than normal shit, and then determine who to give the gifts to. It's impersonal and rather than take that approach, I prefer to figure out what I would like to give someone before looking for the best deal available. I know one person (and yes this is a personal anecdote, so take it for what it's worth) who literally stood in line in front of Wal-Mart for hours for their Black Friday specials and bought six (6!) waffle makers to give as gifts to people. Not because they know six people who really want a waffle maker, but because they were on sale. I see that as one of the major reasons the spirit of gift-giving is being frowned upon as "evil consumerism."

Comment Re:Multiple interpretations? (Score 1) 392

Agreed. I hate to rain on everyone's "Look, Google is doing EVIL!!!" parade, but until the clause in the agreement between UMG and YouTube is disclosed, and I'm proven wrong, I'm more inclined to believe that this is a gross abuse on UMG's part. Google has already reinstated the video and put the onus of proving copyright infringement on UMG. What is more probable (at least imho) is that UMG and Google did have an agreement that allowed UMG, in good faith, to pull videos thought to be infringing on their content quicker and easier than filing formal DCMA takedown notices. I know this is probably an unpopular sentiment around here, but I'm going to see how this all plays out and how Google responds before picking up my pitchfork.

Comment Ars Tech (Score 1) 368

Ars Technica did a write up of this also I read this in their article:

"Right now, Google won't even suggest who should be in your circles. But it has the technology to do so (it's already making suggestions on who you might include on Gmail mailing lists). So in the future it's conceivable that Google might indeed provide plenty of nonbinding suggestions for who you might want it your Circles. "We've got this whole system already in place that hasn't been used that much where we keep track of every time you email someone or chat to them or things like that," says Smarr. "Then we compute affinity scores. So we're able to do suggestions not only about who you should add to a circle, or even what circles you could create out of whole cloth.""

A little concerned over the "things like that"

Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.