Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:they don't ban installation of open source (Score 1) 237

It would be absolutely fantastic if people would be rational about tech news.

With the amount of fearmongering that goes on in the media, it would be great if people would be rational about ALL news. With that said, I can't help but think that in some cases the reason that the proposed regulation isn't as bad as people fear is because the fearful raise some reasonable objections and the government scales back the scope of the new regulations. Therefore, a little paranoia (and more importantly, voicing your concern to the government) can be good at limiting the scope of proposed regulations.

Comment This Really Needs to Stop (Score 2) 224

This is absolutely outrageous and the fact that it happens so often is even more maddening. This is way worse than piracy. When a pirate makes an infringing copy of a video, they still leave the original copies behind so that other people can consume them legally. However, in cases like this, companies are having works removed from distribution channels when those companies know that they have absolutely no claim of ownership over that material. Could you imagine the damages the studios would claim if one of their movies was pulled from theaters during the opening weekend because someone made a bogus claim that the movie infringed on their content? There needs to be severe fines for this behavior. Given that this behavior prevents rightsholders from distributing their material over claims that are made in completely bad faith, the penalties should be hundreds of times worse than the penalties for a single case of copyright infringement. And the penalties should scale considerably for repeat offenders on top of that.

Comment Re:I'm against harrassment, but censorship is wors (Score 2) 474

This is exactly why we need liberty-minded proponents setting up anonymous mechanisms of communications. Nobody should have the right to censor content online.

Wait, what? You don't believe that the people that go through the effort of creating and maintaining their own forum should have the ability to exercise some control over the content being posted on that forum? The comments they host become a reflection of that site and mold its reputation.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate censorship and I think Reddit is doing a great job of tearing itself apart from the inside out. But if you really believe in liberty, then you also have to recognize the liberty of the owners and moderators to shape their content and the liberty of the users to migrate to other forums.

Comment Re:Great, but not great (Score 3, Interesting) 84


While only available on mobile via Apple products at launch, the company says it will announce plans to expand to other platforms and providers soon. That also mirrors the path that HBO took with its streaming service

That path that HBO took was a three-month exclusive deal with Apple, so I'm deducing that Showtime has a similar deal based on the phrase "mirrors the path" in the article. I guess, if true, that isn't that bad, especially compared to the rumors of Apple trying to get content providers to avoid using other distribution channels entirely once the Apple music streaming service goes live.

Comment Re:Great, but not great (Score 3, Interesting) 84

Finally someone else who understands that limiting yourselves to already existing customers is an extremely dumb idea.

Did they, though? Now instead of being locked into a cable provider you're locked into a cable provider or the Apple ecosystem. It looks like Apple is pushing everyone who wants to do digital distribution with them into exclusivity deals. Slightly less evil than their previous tactics of price fixing but still pretty evil.

Comment Re:Open Source Branding (Score 1) 95

How did this straw man argument get modded up? I never suggested anything of the sort. I was implying that maybe these clever names for vulnerabilities aren't coming from within the open source community and that closed source software seems to be getting off easy when it comes to the level of effort in having their vulnerabilities named for them.

Comment Re:Open Source Branding (Score 1) 95

I should have made my statement more clear. I didn't mean to imply that all open source projects have bad names (although I still believe that many do) but I was more focused on the fact that it seems to be only open source projects that have vulnerabilities with marketing-friendly names despite the fact that closed source software has had many vulnerabilities just as severe and I can't recall one closed source vulnerability with a memorable name. The point is: who is responsible for naming these vulnerabilities and why aren't they just as clever in naming closed source vulnerabilities as they are for open source?

Comment Open Source Branding (Score 4, Interesting) 95

Not to get too far offtopic, but as a long-time user of open source software, it bothers me that open source software seems to have inferior names for its applications (GIMP, Yakuake, etc) but very marketing-friendly names for its vulnerabilities (Heartbleed, Shellshock, Venom). If you look at closed-source software it is the complete opposite - applications have marketing-friendly names while vulnerabilities are called something like "KBstringofnumbersnobodywillrememberorcareabout". So are open source developers just much better at naming vulnerabilities or are the marketing departments of closed software companies quietly assisting with the naming of open-source vulnerabilities?

"Don't think; let the machine do it for you!" -- E. C. Berkeley