Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Remember this next time (Score 1) 62

If you wanted to buy a Nintendo device or game you wouldn't be using software that plays pirated Nintendo games on someone else's hardware.

I hate to be pedantic (ok actually no I don't), but that doesn't necessarily follow. Someone who already has a Switch and believes in the moral obligation to pay for a copy of the game, yet wants to have a playable version on their PC for any of several reasons already discussed, might do exactly what you describe.

Comment Re:I would not come forward either (Score 1) 91

Grabiner added that it was "striking" that no one else had publicly claimed to be Satoshi. "If Dr Wright were not Satoshi, the real Satoshi would have been expected to come forward to counter the claim," he said.

"I'm Spartacus!"

(No-one else comes forward).

By Grabiner's logic I am now Spartacus: If I were not Spartacus, the real Spartacus would have been expected to come forward to counter the claim

I suggest we refer to this particular logical fallacy as "Grabiner's Hammer", e.g. "by Grabiner's Hammer, I'm the inventor of bitcoin."

Comment Re:We need loser pays. (Score 1) 46

The problem with "loser pays" is that it would exacerbate the problem of differing legal budgets. If you're a small artist, and ACME IP MegaPirates Inc. uses your work for commercial purposes without permission, you have to consider whether you can afford to pay the costs of their in-house highly paid legal team in case the court rules against you if you sue.

Yes, it would help discourage frivolous suits, but it was also discourage legitimate ones, and threaten to financially destroy people who tried to protect their rights. The high cost of legal representation is a problem, and although there has been some legislation to try to help fight frivolous suits, I don't think there's likely to be an easy solution.

Comment Re: Who to believe? (Score 1) 75

There's no reason to remove the safety driver except for cost/propaganda purposes.

...the CEO's primary reason for creating the company was simply to create a saleable company. They don't particularly care if the tech pans out in the long run... they just need some richer company to think it can so they'll throw millions of dollars at the CEO.

Your argument is somewhat undercut by the fact that Cruise is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors, so that buyout's already happened. It's still possible the CEO's bonuses are tied to performance targets relating to driverless success, so it could still be true to a lesser degree.

Comment Re:$15 Billion a Year (Score 1) 88

Closing my eyes, muting the volume, etc. IS ethical.

I remember when a Turner exec explicitly stated otherwise: https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

It wouldn't surprise me if some TV/streaming executives believe there's an implicit contract between viewers and content providers that makes you morally responsible for watching and paying attention to the commercials.

Comment Re: Cannot have people getting cheap legal help! (Score 1) 84

Yes, "RHA" seems to be a mistyping of "RAH", the initials of Robert A. Heinlein. I haven't read The Number of the Beast, but it appears to feature the crew of an interdimensional craft that visits a time/place where they had such a year: https://mycroft.heinleinsociet... (see "Year They Hanged the Lawyers")

Slashdot Top Deals

And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones

Working...