Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Unions are archaic (Score 5, Insightful) 761

by Svippy (#41882867) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Would It Take For Developers To Start Their Own Union?

Unions may seem useless in the USA, but in Europe they actually matter, which is probably why my country has a union for developers. In Europe, unions represent employees when negotiating working rules.

For instance, this means that very few European countries actually have minimum wage laws, because the minimum wag 'laws' are agreements between unions and employers. The idea is to keep government out of working rules (I am beginning to feel this is not the actual term in English), but rather let it remain between the employees (unions) and employers (corporations). However, unions have some rights (e.g. strikes) to protect their negotiation position. Employers too have rights.

I do not see a problem with this system.

Comment: Re:Europe knows what's going on (Score 3, Interesting) 96

by Svippy (#41415135) Attached to: Facebook Disables Face Recognition In EU

It's not illegal in Belgium

Yes it is. Please read the link I provided, or you can use Google to find hundreds of other references.

It was a ban on burkas. Yes, it's ridiculous, but it is not illegal to wear masks in Belgium. It was a ban on religious clothing that obscures a face, particularly forced upon women. But the amount of burkas used in Belgium is probably at a minimum.

Italy or Spain.

Italy and Spain have local bans. For instance, obscuring your face in public is illegal in Barcelona.

Actually, it's only illegal in public buildings, such as markets and libraries, which your link itself lists quite clearly. You can still walk outside while having your face obscured.

So basically, your "many EU countries" is "France". Belgium's law will likely have little consequence, and it seems that the Barcelona law is a protection of public buildings. Not that Turkey is the pedestal of civil rights, but they also had a similar ban as Barcelona (until at least very recently).

Denmark also have a ban on masks, but only during demonstrations and other large crowds. The usual freedom was previously abused heavily by activists to destroy property rather than actual demonstrate. The rationale is that if you are really interested in your message, you will have no issue showing your face at a public demonstration.

But most of these laws seems to be a form of Islamophobia than an actual crackdown on civil liberties, which seems to be collateral damage. There was even talk about banning burkas in Denmark, until politicians realised only 5 people in the whole country wore them, and they were ethnic Danes who had converted to Islam. The cases might even be similar in most other EU countries. Like the Swiss ban on Minarets. Ridiculous.

Comment: Re:..ok, how? (Score 2) 210

by Svippy (#41159053) Attached to: LiftPort Wants To Build Space Elevator On the Moon By 2020

Simple! They build the elevator on Earth, then strap it to a rocket that they fly directly into the moon. Fortunately, they have turned the elevator upside down, so when the rocket crashes into the moon, the elevator stands upward.

This is kinda like how they build skyscrapers: Build it lying down, then straight it up when it's done. Much cheaper and safer.

Comment: Re:What's a derivative work? (Score 4, Informative) 223

by Svippy (#41143383) Attached to: Creative Commons Urged To Drop Non-Free Clauses In CC 4.0

As with any licence, I suppose, it is whatever you label with that licence that it becomes. A single thing (e.g. website, software program, etc.) can include parts that consists of multiple licences, which means the whole 'thing' cannot become one licence, unless altering one of its 'sub' licences does not violate that licence.

On Wikipedia, for instance, the software, i.e. MediaWiki (both server side and the default skins) is GPL, but the content (e.g. text, custom CSS, images, etc.) is CC-SA as you correctly noted. Unless, of course, wherever stated (a lot of images have a variety of licences).

Essentially, no licence wins, because if they cannot be converted to one another, your website has to be released under several licences. However, in general terms, a website appears under one licence, unless noted otherwise. As such, you may wish to include with your Wikipedia excerpt that it is CC-SA content.

I have no idea how much sense this post made, but essentially, it is not uncommon for a multitude of content to have a multitude of licences, even if within the same 'scope'/website/etc.

"Any excuse will serve a tyrant." -- Aesop

Working...