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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Still better than cable (Score 1) 277

Yeah, Luke Cage starts slow, but it eventually pays off. Don't forget it's a series, not a movie. The ending of The Defenders definitely left me wanting more (in the good way).

House of Cards is always slow. It's a political drama and pretty much every major character is also a terrible person. I watch to see how everyone's meticulously laid plans are going to blow up in their own faces, often because of petty and foolish behaviour.

If you like Orange is the New Black you might also like Wentworth. It's a more dramatic and less comedic take on a very similar premise.

Comment Re:Slashdot Ads (Score 1) 237

I've been enjoying The Orville too. I just find it funny that so many people who seem to hate Discovery for the "touchy feely crap" and "forced diversity" seem to love that show.

It's probable that Alex Jones doesn't know about The Orville yet, so they haven't been told that they're supposed to hate it yet.

Comment Re:Wait a minute... (Score 1) 320

The whole exercise is good training for Internet users in general:

You can't trust the first thing you read on the Internet - even if you see it repeated 100 times.

Sources matter.

The problem is that, generally speaking, people only check sources if they're not being told what they want to hear.

And the cost of not checking and being wrong about their political enemies (for example) being behind everything bad is so small that they will likely never correct their mistaken beliefs.

Comment Re:Why just the Russian ads? (Score 1) 428

Not that I disagree, but when you're recruiting for the most powerful position in the world, "shit" and "slightly less than shit" are clearly equivalents.

Not really. When you're recruiting for the "most powerful position in the world", you should clearly be getting the "least shit" person you can get. Even if the differences are small, those differences will be amplified by the power of the position, and thus the power of the position makes it more, not less, to pick the "least shit" candidate.

Comment Re:He's right. (Score 1) 428

When they announced they were going to invent a real-time system to catch 'fake news' and delete it I became awoken to yet another fear. What makes them the purveyors of what is 'Real' and what is 'Fake'. Suddenly they now delete anything remotely anti-facebook in agenda. If Facebook decides for themselves that they want a total ban and confiscation of guns, and they delete every pro-gun post and inflate the anti-gun posts, they will claim that 90% of america is for the removal of guns. Its worse than State Controlled Media, its Corporatocracy controlled Media.

I'm not sure why that actually worries you, if they wanted to do that, there are so many excuses they could use, that one more isn't much of a threat. For instance, they could say they were "stopping terrorist posts" or "fighting child pornography". They could simply make the messages disappear because "they violated the obscenity filter". What should be worrying you is that you probably have no way to know if they've already been doing that.

Comment Re: To be fair... (Score 1) 428

Honestly, Putin probably would have preferred Clinton in office. (No, hold on, let me finish.)

No. But you can pay out just enough rope to hang your ridiculous idea.

I was going to disagree with you...

Because if that had been the only election day difference, the GOP would still have control of both the House and the Senate. Clinton would be unable to get anything done, and come on, the calls for her impeachment would have started the day after the election.

Putin doesn't want nothing to get done. He wants nothing good for America to get done. Trump has failed at lots of things, but he also has got lots of other things done — all of them bad for us, and most of them consequently good for Russia.

Clinton was the status quo candidate, and even the status quo was better for us than this shit.

... but I think you're absolutely right. Clinton's a pragmatist, she would have signed sane legislation passed by the Republicans, and she would likely have appointed people to positions of power who have far less contempt for Americans and the American government. If she was never able to act on her legislative agenda, it would be a far worse result for a Russian government that just wants to see the United States of America destroy itself.

Comment Re:To be unfair... [Re: To be fair...] (Score 1) 428

In other words, they looked for the issues causing division in America, and hammered on them.

Which is NOT the same as "supporting Trump." And it's something that the Russians have been doing for decades, long before Trump came along.

Yes, but only because Trump is an issue causing division in America, and they hammered him all the way into the White House.

Comment Re: News at 11 (Score 1) 428

1. Infrastructure: He never did much except for one of his weekly science fairs on it. But in the United States we have an infrastructure that needs a large upgrade. Roadways that are not well designed for today traffic. Serious Water Problems, We hear about Lead, but in many solid Republican communities, the water supply has been polluted with chemicals such as PFOA. As well improvement in our communication. This is something I don't know why Trump didn't push as part of his 100 day agenda. As a guy who likes new and shiny stuff big machines, and big buildings. This would had been an easy win for him, where he can put on a hard hat, cut ribbons, and have a clear measurable thing to show for his "leadership". This is also something that he could had bipartisan support for. Starting off his campaign as being the Deal maker.

I suspect this is because Trump craves praise, especially cheering crowds of enthusiastic supporters. Trump, himself, probably isn't interested in infrastructure repairs and upgrades because it's pretty boring stuff, and thus he doesn't expect it him to get the instant cheers that, for instance, picking a fight with black NFL players would get him. Why do hard work, when it's so much easier to pick fights with people your supporters already don't like?

2. American Jobs: Unfortunately he really turned this into a raciest agenda. However a lot of jobs (including tech jobs) are being outsourced. Where Americans are kept on board until they have trained their replacement. But could had pushed back against the American tech worker shortage, and showed the mass set of skills which could had been used.

I think this is a difficult problem to solve. The problem isn't a lack of qualified people in technology, it's really a lack of knowledge and trust on the part of would be employers. Many managers seem to want to hire people who are doing the exact same work as the job they wish to fill, and they want to pay their new employees below market rates. This is because they don't understand who can be trained to fill that role, they want to do their job and keep costs low, and if they invest in training an employee, that employee might take their new valuable skills and leave for some place that will pay above market rates. (It might be important to note that for the manager, failing to fill the position is probably "not their fault" where as training a new hire only to lose them to poaching could be "their fault") However, that's a nearly impossible goal to achieve without importing workers from (or exporting jobs to) locations that currently have a much lower local market rate. So there seems to be very little that the President can do about this, other than claim that particular visas are bad without understanding what the problems are.

3. Got things done: The idea that he was a businessman, we would think he could get things done. He however seems to lack the willingness to worry about the details, or have a complex big vision. But the idea he would be able to push this vision, like a businessman to drive change.

Trump's business dealings have been to enrich himself, he has never shown any interest in doing things for other people. In fact, his history of business dealings have been mostly about getting things done at other's people expense. I've read stories about how Trump routinely rips people off in his business dealings unless they can figure out a way to make it more expensive for him to rip them off than to behave honestly. The thing is, he was motivated to work on his business to make himself richer. Now, he appears to be only motivated to do what will get him cheering crowds and currently his supporters love it when he lays blame and insults the people they don't like, so he hasn't had to do any real hard work to get them to demonstrate their love for him.

However now that Trump became president, he only seemed do things that the Deplorable wanted,

He appears to crave adulation and cheering audiences instead of money now. And it seem it's really easy to get racists (for example) to love you (as a pubic figure), all you have to do is make a whole bunch of comments that could be interpreted as racist while refusing to condemn racists and racism. Racists have few public figures who aren't nearly universally reviled. Trump appears to have found out that being a bully and leading a mob is a lot more fun than doing actual work. So he's probably going to coast on this for as long as he can manage it.

Comment Re: Who gives a shit? (Score 1) 506

If you buy an NFL branded football, use it to play a game of football and then film it and distribute the resulting video the NFL won't care because you are only broadcasting someone who is *using* the product.

That analogy just fails, because a football as a metaphor for a video game metaphor is simply far too reductionist. For instance, the football isn't even a game by itself, it's just one tiny part of the equipment needed for a particular game. Your average video game provides the ball, the players, the referees and the stadium in one convenient package, the player only provides the coach. However, if you were playing a game of football with an NFL football, NFL players, and NFL referees at an NFL stadium, it would probably be an actual NFL game. However, if we were to suppose that, for some reason, the NFL made you the coach of one of the teams for a game, the NFL would still own the broadcast rights for that football game.

Maybe you should think of it more like you're reading the lines aloud from a comic book while showing video of the comic book pages. You're still using the product, the comic book, rather than redistributing the product directly, however, I'm pretty confident that you could be sued and would likely lose the case because I'm pretty sure that exact scenario has played out exactly that way before. I think that analogy represents the let's play video situation far more accurately than your football analogy, because the video is displaying the game's art assets, playing it's audio, and using its rules and interactions as the primary part of the video. The player may be directing what the character is doing and the player is likely talking over the game audio, but for most games that's as far as their contribution goes, which really isn't that far.

Comment Re: Oh please (Score 1) 506

In that case why didn't Bill Maner get kicked off HBO for saying the same thing? Oh he's a leftist so it's ok.

First of all, it's HBO, they let people do just about anything over there. Second of all, it was actually used in a joke and he was referencing himself in a derogatory way, and Maher has subsequently apologized for using it and promised to edit that joke out of future airings of his show. So there's a qualitative difference between Maher's usage and PewDiePie's useage and their reactions to criticism over it's usage.

Comment Re: Who gives a shit? (Score 1) 506

Maybe it is 15 or 30 years, not sure what the golden number is, or maybe it still reserves the right to request permission of use but no licensing fees. What needs to end is that the nth generation after still leeches off the work from someone they are often not even related to.

My recollection is that for 98% of all works, more than 99% of all value is extracted in the first 15 years. Copyright extensions only benefit the 2% of works (and their copyright holders) that have significant on going value after the first 15 years. It's pretty much limited to the Beatles' music and Disney movies.

Comment Re: Who gives a shit? (Score 1) 506

Just because you were "successful" doesn't mean that you had a valid DMCA claim. Trolling somebody may be wrong, but it's not a copyright violation.

Of course, if you commit a copyright violation in the process of trolling someone, it's still a copyright violation, right? Trolling is not one of the protected uses of copyrighted materials.

Comment Re: Who gives a shit? (Score 1) 506

There used to be tv gameshows where people would compete playing C64 games against each other, with the gameplay itself being displayed to the viewer intermixed with commentary about their gameplay.

It's likely those game shows had an agreement with the game publishers.

Should whoever manufactured the ball claim copyright over a game of football being broadcast?

No, however, the NFL does claim the rights to all of their games and would likely haul your ass into court if you posted a substantial amount of footage with your commentary about the game.

It could be interesting if this gets into moral copyrights. The courts have previously held up that transformation of a work that brings the original into disrupt (according the views of the creator) are not permissible. In particular, I remember a case where a sculptor sued (and won) over a company because of their decision to put Christmas ribbons on his sculptures. Ribbons that he thought the ribbons were tacky. Having someone yell profanity and racial slurs over a game they created could certainly qualify as a violation of the moral rights of the creators.

Slashdot Top Deals

We can defeat gravity. The problem is the paperwork involved.