Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:So...useless people do this, then? (Score 2) 111

The above is the appropriate response. When most of what you learn from the TV doesn't affect you, and you can't affect it, you might as well have a pint.

all-news, all-the-time

That is not what it is. News is, by definition, something novel. It is revelation. It is not re-re-re-re-re-analysis, nor is it replaying the same bloody 10-second video on a loop for 48 hours straight. (Looking at you specifically, CNN, though every single "news" network is guilty of this.)

There is plenty of news in the world daily. Yet we are treated to a infinitesimal portion of it repeated over and over and discussed to death.

FOMO is not about consuming the news. It is about trying to sift through tonnes of horseshit to find those few nuggets of actual news that is reported.

One of the best things I ever did for myself was to give up chasing the tail of the incessant information flow. I can pursue information on those topics that are important to me, and know that the truly massive topics will come to me through others, regardless.

Comment Re:Lesson for HBO: Pay for good IT people (Score 1) 60

$250k is only the tip of the iceberg.

The blackmailer is demanding $6 million.
Nearly the entire IT organisation, much of senior management, and fair number of people at Time Warner (their parent company) are now at least partially dedicated to resolving this problem. My guess is that they're spending roughly $20k per hour just in employees' time working on this. And that doesn't even account for the special contractors they've brought on, the delays in other projects, the reputation hit for the company, or the harm the blackmailer could do by releasing sensitive media.

I think this will cost HBO around $20M by the time all is said and done. They could have hired a few more than two 'mid-level security engineers' for that.

But for a company that profited $1.7 billion last year, that's hardly a drop in the bucket.

Comment Re: There is a difference (Score 2) 378

1) No one said it has to be a monopoly. The local municipality could build a fibre network and allow competing ISPs to lease bandwidth on it.

2) You're comparing apples to oranges. Mobile broadband is orders of magnitude more expensive than terrestrial broadband. Unless the cost, reliability, and true speeds of mobile are brought in line, it is not an acceptable alternative.

Comment Re:Article? (Score 1) 129

I want to mod you up, but I hope adding my voice will be more effective at getting others to do so.

Between the two Apple fists of 1) requiring feature releases to receive bug fixes and 2) having my essential jailbroken features forcibly removed if I "upgrade", I still run a version of iOS on my iPhone that is at least three major versions (and dozens of minor releases) out of date.

The idea that I must acquiesce to Apple's UI design changes to get essential security updates borders on the criminal. I'm still not immune to heartbleed, for fuck's sake.

I don't particularly care for the "walled garden" approach to begin with. But when they continuously move the walls and leave me out in the cold and unprotected when I don't actively follow their model, it becomes an act of hostility.

Fuck Apple, and any other company who requires me to play by their rules to fix issues they caused in the first place. It's MY phone, dammit!

Comment Re:My how have the tables turned (Score 1) 194

As a fellow artist, I empathise completely. And your points are very well articulated.

If I may, I'd like to offer a few thoughts of my own.

First, in my own experience, I am sick of corporations exploiting artists, wringing them out, squeezing them dry, and tossing them away (often penniless). This obviously doesn't apply to some small, honest labels and distributors (and it sounds as if you had an above-average experience with your label - I'm saddened that they folded), but it certainly does apply to larger labels; to ASCAP/BMI/etc.; and the governments that have structured the system to be favourable to the companies (and allow them to shit on artists with impunity). For example: an ex-gf of mine had some music air as part of a national television show. Nominally (according to ASCAP's published rates), she should have received in the neighbourhood of $8,000 in royalties. But because her "share" was small that year, she received - in total - ~$38.00. So other, larger artists were paid the rest of the $7,900 she earned (after ASCAP already took their cut, of course). The royalty and residuals industry is completely corrupt. (And never mind that ASCAP has what amounts to a government-mandated monopoly in the US, allowing it to collect royalties on behalf of non-ASCAP members... which those artists rarely, if ever, see.)

So I have no interest in paying my hard-earned money to companies who rape their golden geese. As a result, I acquire freely, and whenever I have the opportunity, give money directly to the artists. (And the 50 euro I send is the equivalent of what, 200-500 album sales in royalties for most artists?) If more people did as I do, I think we'd see much more power in the hands of artists.

Not that I think (all) artists deserve to be paid for (all of) their work. That said, IF anyone does deserve to be paid, it is the artist - those cunts in Cyprus are most definitely stealing from you, and should be drawn and quartered. But I know from personal experience that some of my songs (songs I've worked long and hard on) are shit, and I don't deserve to be compensated for them, no matter how hard I worked. What I give to the artists is not a gift, but it isn't a salary, either - it's an expression of gratitude and appreciation for the work that I, as a consumer, feel it appropriate for it. Any artist who insists that I owe them simply because they worked hard won't get my money, ever; no one on Earth is entitled to be paid. Every payment for work, everywhere, is a contract between the payer and payee - and there are some "artists" who I would rather pay to STOP making their "music". But that's entirely subjective on my part, and others can disagree - and are free to give them as much as they like.

But for any artist whose work does earn, I think governments should mandate the minimum percentage artists should be paid for any monies received. This has been missing since the very beginning of the industry, and harms artists more than any other single issue. So while your case for eliminating safe harbour is well-received, I think if we fixed the payments structure systemically, you might not care as much about those Cypriot wankers, who are, let's be fair, the ones taking sloppy fifty-seconds in the queue of people who have been stealing from you (and from all of us) all along.

Comment Re:Some privacy is more equal than other (Score 2) 470

I have had this very thought for many years now.

A close friend had an aneurysm years back, but who was revived (though never resuscitated). In order to remove him from life support, the hospital was required by law to do an EEG to try to detect alpha waves (and thus consciousness, by definition). The test came back negative, and his family helped him to pass on.

I have wondered since what the feasibility would be of running such a test on a foetus to determine the presence of consciousness. This would seem a logical and scientific way to remove the philosophy/religion from the debate altogether and allow everyone to move on.

Comment Re:Does Anybody Care? (Score 1) 75

Salaried positions are a fuzzy area in this. Many companies seem to feel that if they pay you a salary, they're entitled to your productivity 168 hours per week, and any time that you spend eating, sleeping, having sex, enjoying time with your friends and family, etc. is simply their magnanimous gift to you and your "work-life balance".

This is precisely why I clock in and out, even when not required. And I generally have some sort of understanding in writing that the company's right to my productivity are limited to what I do during work hours on company equipment.

Comment Re:"Are you in danger" (Score 1) 90

Process is oft times more important in legal situations than the facts... or the law. The single biggest reason to retain an attorney is to get someone who can navigate the process on your behalf.

Applying for asylum isn't only about proving that your life is in danger; it's about proving it the right way, in the right terms, in triplicate (except when only in duplicate), while the moon is waxing. Get one step wrong, and you may well lose your case, regardless of the facts, the law, or the truth.

After process, knowledge of case law, legal terminology, and knowledge of law are (in my limited experience) the other benefits of having a solicitor. The DoNotPay robot(?) provides, at least, knowledge of process and bits of the rest. And that can truly make the difference between winning and losing in court. I think it's an important and useful tool, and well-applied in this case.

Slashdot Top Deals

The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.

Working...