Gender doesn't enter into that discussion...

<tongue-in-cheek>But she's a woman, so whaddya expect.</tongue-in-cheek>

This is the quality discussion I've come to expect from Slashdot. A "joking" sexist comment is still a sexist comment. And this crap is moderated to +4 or +5. How can you claim gender doesn't enter into the discussion in tech spaces, when these spaces are full of dudebros who drive everyone else out?

I think I've finally figured out why so many of you stick with the delusion tech is a strict meritocracy. Y'all don't want to admit maybe you're not the best at what you do, that toxic culture has driven your competition out. With apologies to Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ego depends upon his not understanding it!"

YouTube Red? RedTube? What's the difference?

(Maybe RedTube isn't a thing anymore, but I won't verify its existence from work, and you shouldn't either.)

TaskFreak? http://www.taskfreak.com/origi...

Yeah, it's old. But also you can host it yourself, it's simple, it has a web interface, and it works. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it's bad. Especially if it's a solution to "a problem that can't be unique or unusual"

Funny to see this today, given today's news up here in Canada.

"Private enterprise is more efficient!" go the cries of the free-market absolutists. The question is, more efficient at what, though. Because here it seems telecoms are optimized to extract maximum dollars from the population, which is not something the citizenry wants out of basic infrastructure.

Why Is There No Nobel Prize In Technology?

There is. It's called "becoming a billionaire, and probably also a household name".

There's also a Pulitzer in technology. It's called "Selling out to Google".

I think Trump ran for President just so he could stand next to Obama in line and wear an "<-- I'm with Stupid" T-shirt.

>

... all sorts of bad scenarios that will come about from granting jokes copyright protections ...

Imagine a politician copyrighting all the possible jokes which could be made at their expense. That would be quite chilling.

Probably not. This feels similar to the copyright situation surrounding recipes.

You can't copyright a recipe. You can copyright a particular description of a recipe, which is why many recipes come with flowery descriptions and pretty pictures. Those can be copyrighted. But the thing itself, the list of instructions, cannot be.

By the same token, it'd be unsurprising if the courts found that particular wordings or diagrams can be copyrighted, but the joke itself -- the end product -- cannot be copyrighted.

Conan isn't a hack, he's genuinely funny (IMHO). This is probably coincidental. Somewhat related (from Zach Wiener): An Open Letter to Sarah Silverman

On May 12, 2011, Feinstein cosponsored PIPA.

I think this person needs to lose an election.

What does Neil deGrasse Tyson have to say about racial diversity in astrophysics? That's right, nothing, so who fucking cares??

False. Neil deGrasse Tyson has an amazing story which is exactly about diversity in astrophysics. You can watch it for yourself here.

Factchecking is for winners.

Ostensibly government exists to provide services. It's reasonable that one would have to provide information in the course of receiving these services. But, if a for-profit corporation is asking for personal information, it's almost assured to be part of a scheme to extract money from me.

Or to put it another way, there's only a very small chance government thugs will use my address to knock down my door, but a very large chance a company will use my address to send me spam. So I don't see why the result of the study is surprising.

Before you all flame me, I'm not American, and neither is this study.