Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Overblown nonsense. (Score 1) 51

by fyngyrz (#48899401) Attached to: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In the Public Domain

From TFS:

...there's no clear way within the law to actually declare something in the public domain. Instead, the public domain declarations are really more of a promise not to make use of the exclusionary rights provided under copyright.

Ok, so the statement is about a clear way to put something in the public domain. Here's how you clearly put something in within the law: (1) You declare it public domain. (2) Now, keeping it there: You simply exercise a level of ethics even a 5 year old understands: You don't go back on your word, because (for one thing) that would make you a major fucktarded scumbag. (3) Whatever it is, is in the public domain, stays there, totally within the law, end of story.

Sometimes the ideas of law -- which is a hugely flawed instrument -- and the result of actions taken/not-taken get all confused in people's minds. If you want to put something into the public domain, do so, and subsequently just exercise a minimal level of personal honor, and you can be sure that your intent will carry through. The only one who can screw this up is you, and to do that you have to act in a particular way which guarantees you are knowingly acting like a dickhead. So when this clown tells you that you can't get it done, he is impugning your honor, not describing reality, and the only reaction you should have to that is annoyance.

Given that you are honorable and simply don't go back on your word, the user has nothing to worry about either.

So this really isn't about law. This is about your behavior.

Now, I grant you that most an entire generation having grown up with the idea that it's ok to steal IP, and the toxic idiocy of the "information wants to be free" crowd additionally muddying the waters, and the proliferation of people who just can't seem to keep their word, one might have reason to be cynical about this. But remember: TFS is saying that it is hard to put something into PD. It isn't. There's no reason you or I have to act without honor, and there are many reasons, starting from simply sleeping better at night, that we ought to act with honor.

Yes, I've got stuff out there that is PD. No, I will never, ever revoke that status. See how easy that is? 100% effective, too.

Comment: Re:Where Does He Stand On the Issues? (Score 2, Funny) 47

by ScentCone (#48899339) Attached to: Fark's Drew Curtis Running For Governor of Kentucky

Even if it is simply "I will hold public opinion polls and honor their conclusion"

So, you'd be OK with him supporting mandatory labeling on all foods that contain DNA? Because 80% of the population says they support their government helping them out with that.

I'd never support a politician who says he'll do what the majority say they want. We don't need mob rule directly, or by proxy, either.

Comment: Re:I have an even better idea (Score 1) 280

by Cederic (#48898233) Attached to: Government Recommends Cars With Smarter Brakes

Plane: We're talking about commuting here. And good luck getting on a plane nowadays as an adult without a license.

I've never used my driving license as ID for boarding an aircraft. Other forms of identification are available. Do you really think that people that don't drive also never fly??

Trains can take you between towns, not just across them.
Snow does not preclude bike riding.

Other than for commuting, taxis are cost-competitive to car ownership in the UK. They're frequently less convenient, but not more expensive, especially if you live in an urban location that lets you use public transport for a proportion of your journeys.

I appreciate you're playing devil's advocate but the barriers to not owning a car aren't insurmountable, even in the US. As someone else in the thread suggests, learn to drive safely or move to New York.

Comment: Re:This reminds me... (Score 1) 130

by hairyfeet (#48896693) Attached to: NVIDIA Responds To GTX 970 Memory Bug

Sorry but while you are telling folks what it was called what you are NOT telling them is the bs marketing that Nvidia used back then, which was they would market them as "128GB cards" or 64GB cards" and then in teeny tiny print it would tell you that this was "the total memory including system cache". IIRC back then ATI wasn't doing that, they just sold them as 64Mb or 128Mb cards that could "go up to 256Mb".

Of course at the end of the day it didn't matter as both turbo and hyper blew ass so I told my customers if they wanted a discrete get the dedicated and avoid the crap cache like the plague, but I remember HP was bad about selling those crap cache Nvidias.

Comment: Re:That makes sense! (Score 1) 102

by ScentCone (#48896591) Attached to: Bomb Threats Via Twitter Partly Shut Down Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport

Bringing a fighter jet to a bomb threat. That makes sense!

You don't have much of an imagination, do you? Or pay any kind of attention to actual events, pretty much ever?

Escort aircraft can make observations and help with communications and recordings that can't be made any other way. One of the threats suggested the bomber was on board, implying the possibility that he might make demands which could include, possibly, making that aircraft into a weapon aimed at a metropolitan area ... which might require destroying the aircraft before that could happen. Fighters are routinely deployed when other aircraft stray from where they're supposed to be, cease communicating, etc. Which you'd know, if you paid attention.

Comment: Re:Hey! I've been gypped! (Score 2) 130

by hairyfeet (#48896577) Attached to: NVIDIA Responds To GTX 970 Memory Bug

Because it can't actually USE all the RAM? Its like saying "Windows XP can have up to 4GB of RAM" which while TECHNICALLY true is bullshit because of the way 32bit Windows works the max you'll ever be able to get the OS to use is around 3.5GB, with most systems only hitting around 3.2GB-3.4GB.

If they were selling this as a 3.5GB card? I'd say fine and dandy, card makers often will disable parts that either don't work or to have different tiers at different price points but in this case they are advertising and selling it as a 4GB card when its really only a 3.5GB thanks to the way they gimped the chip.

Comment: Re:If all goes well. . . (Score 1) 224

by postbigbang (#48895999) Attached to: Eric Schmidt: Our Perception of the Internet Will Fade

You admit, ipso facto, Google knows, and the advertiser knows. That they don't serve it on a silver platter is just a detail.

Don't give your permission, how? Decide what conglomeration has access and which doesn't? Geemenie, we can't get people to stop using 123456 as a freaking password. These devices, IMHO, are predatory! Yeah, we'll disable them.

Then the voice recognition and auto-recognition software in the AV system in the living room party will rat out all of the participants. We have to change this opt-out mentality, as if everyone has tacit permission to begin with. Who, when, ever does anyone ever get anything like "serious consequences for failing to comply with such requests" when law enforcement barely knows their shoes from shinola? It's grab first, and don't audit later.

You trust these people, and they are stealing you blind, and will continue to do so until it becomes very difficult for them to continue. Google didn't get rich by hiding people's data. Didn't happen that way. If you work for them, you're part of the problem, IMHO.

Yeah, tie things up in the legislature. How many other blocks do you wanna throw up before it becomes a moral issue for you?

The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers.

Working...