Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:Not a new idea (Score 4, Informative) 388

and the mountain was named after him BEFORE he was elected.

Well, given it was named after him 16 years after he was assassinated and unless they let dead presidents stay in office, I would say that at the point it was named after him he had already been president as long as he would ever be.

Comment Given that Air Force brass hate the A-10... (Score 2) 473

...and love shiny new, big-budget fighter planes, I can only assume that the test will be rigged to show the F-35 in the best light possible.

Ask yourself: How many Air Force brass made their bones flying A-10s (or cargo planes, or refueling tankers) and the answer is going to be pretty close to zero.

Comment Re:Fighter "Generations" is a Lockheed Marketing T (Score 1) 732

Australia wanted to buy the F-22 the whole time, but the US government wouldn't allow Lockheed to export it. The F-35 was supposed to be just-bad-enough for the give it to the vassals in return for tribute, without threatening Washington's superiority, but just-good-enough to lessen the amount of protection Washington must give its vassals and make it look like a legitimate arms purchase.

It's obvious that Australia should have gone for the Typhoon as soon as export permission for F-22 was denied, but if Australia really had some balls, it would have started openly courting Sukhoi, buying one fighter at a time until the overlord at least gives us the reach-around. Either way the F-22 is a land based fighter, so if the US wants to cross the Pacific to discipline us, they'll be doing it without air support.

Comment Re: What problem? (Score 3, Interesting) 213

If he is providing a copy of a video that is unavailable on youtube then he is providing a service and I have no problem with him getting a little revenue from it. One problem with streaming media is the long tail and most stuff in the public domain has very little value and therefore very little incentive for someone to upload it.

I have no problem either with this either, but Google does not choose do do this and he has no standing to dispute it. If he had a contract or even a verbal agreement to begin with, you could say that Google acted in bad faith, but he didn't, he merely gave an unsolicited video, explicitly not covered by copyright to Google and asked for a cut. It's not wrong that he asked for a cut and if Google had have given it to him, I would not object to it, so long as they did not prevent others from re-uploading the same video under the same terms.

What I do object to is the gall of this guy to come to Slashdot, a notoriously pro-free-use forum to complain about Google using this public domain video without paying him. If he did make this work more accessible, it pales in comparison to the work that Google have done, providing hard disk space, bandwidth and searching capabilities. If he wanted to distribute it, why didn't he host it himself?

Comment Re: He's got company (Score 1) 442

"China" in Chinese is "Zhongguo", but I think Korea is a better example, it's called "Choson" in the North and "Hanguk" in the South, which are of course used to refer to both North and South, by the respective sides. This of course reiterates why the whole "CÃte-d'Ivoire" thing is rubbish, I don't care what you call my country in your language, don't tell me what to call your country in mine.

Comment Re: What problem? (Score 3, Insightful) 213

If the video you post is, for whatever reason, popular enough that it could bring in ad revenue that makes it profitable vs. not continuing to host and distribute it, there is absolutely no basis for them to refuse to pay you.

If it's public domain, they don't have to pay anyone. Google has just as much rights to make money from a public domain video as anyone else, if you don't like it, host it yourself.

The bald faced hypocrisy of "this work is public domain, damn Google for not paying me for it!" just discredits everyone here calling for more works to enter the public domain. Google is doing what a good publisher should do, sharing public domain work and collecting a small revenue to pay for its trouble, "eporue" on the other hand is a parasite, seeing rent on something he didn't create, like some feudal baron. Adam Smith and Karl Marx agree on one thing and one thing only, rent seeking is inherently bad, so whether you are a conservative or a socialist you should join together and pillory this leech.

Comment Re: Wow Finland! (Score 1) 330

Being an Uber driver isn't against the law, driving around paying passengers without a taxi license is against the law. Now, an Uber driver showing up when a ride is booked may be able to demonstrate an intent to operate as an unlicensed taxi, but the police officer can hardly catch anyone red-handed this way without entrapment. That said, Finland is not a common law jurisdiction, I'm not sure if entrapment even exists.

Comment Re: Obvious deflection. (Score 2) 262

His claim was that those are not weddings, but instead are other gatherings reported to be weddings after the fact for propaganda value. He also claims that higher numbers of casualties are reported, again, for propaganda value.

He does not once claim it is OK to ever bomb a Pakistani wedding.

If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. -- Wilson Mizner