Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:WARNING: this is not me... apk (Score -1, Offtopic) 628

I'm just waiting to hear that all these posts have secretly been part of a long-running ARG that is just going over everyone's head. I imagine some marketing monkey somewhere, desperately - furiously pasting these posts and hoping and praying that someone gets it soon.

At least it's more entertaining, anyway.

Comment Re:was it really without their permission? (Score 2) 88

Yea, the article is very vague other than to say it seems it's going through one company to another, etc. It is claimed that the first party to his publishing indicated that they were not pleased with it either. Undoubtedly someone assumed that "standard contract rules apply" and for one of those companies the standard rules are "DRM protects our rights as an ebook publisher." I'll be interested in seeing how they respond, but the contents of a contract will be of the greatest influence.

Comment Re:Fact finding by dragnet. (Score 2) 119

If you've read any of the posts at those blogs you'll note that this particular law firm operates without determining who actually pirated something. For example, when a court asked how they determined that the defendant was the perpetrator, they claimed that their research indicated he lived alone and thus was the sole user of the IP address. Of course a brief consultation with his lawyer ensued who quickly spoke up and indicated that the defendant has been married and living with his wife of many years now.

So the problem isn't necessarily that those who pirate will pay; but that those who are accused of pirating will pay irregardless of their innocence or guilt.

Comment Re:Not high capacity (Score 1) 1862

Yes, well the point is to ban magazines with capacities "higher than we want you to have" (aka, anything greater than zero) and not "higher than would normally be used with a weapon of this type".

Separately, and not in relation to the parent post, but since I'm posting right now... the AC are out in force today!

Comment Re:i think your uncle is right (Score 1) 340

In response to the "what for?" in the "Uncle hacked hypothesis" a reasonable scenario exists where this would be of benefit to the malware authors. Specifically, having malware alone on a computer doesn't necessarily generate revenue for them, for that they need to use it to obtain something with a more liquid monetary value - such as user/pass credentials for the users bank, etc. In fact, the ideal scenario from a malware author's point of view is that he wants to 1. Infect a computer, 2. Use the infection for gain, and 3. Spread the infection so that #2 can be repeated elsewhere.

Comment Re:WYSIWYG Least of the problems... (Score 4, Insightful) 196

I have to agree with Frosty here. The page that is linked in the summary clearly identifies the problem in the section entitled Rationale; "The decline in new contributor growth is the single most serious challenge facing the Wikimedia movement in the year 2011." Unfortunately they come to the wrong conclusion as to how to address the issue with the very next sentence; "Removing the avoidable technical impediments associated with Wikimedia's editing interface is a necessary pre-condition for increasing the number of Wikimedia contributors."
Quite frankly, it's obvious that the "technical impediments" of the editing interface are not to blame or else there would not currently be 4,099,684 pages of content (which excludes an additional 24,635,011 "other" pages - source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics ) as I type this. No, as Frosty P. states the problem is with the drama that comes with attempting to edit or create articles on Wikipedia. Rampant deletionism (which wasn't a thing before Wikipedia, hah!) abounds and new users are driven away in frustration. In short, they need to work on getting their current volunteers to operate in a more welcoming manner.
No doubt a majority of the problem is caused by a minority of the editors, but like everything else the vocal minority will out-influence a silent majority. This is the problem.

Comment Re:Tools reclassified again? (Score 5, Insightful) 75

There's been a lot of back and forth revision of the definition over the years. I remember it was originally something like "Any object used outside of its natural scope to achieve a goal." Then people realized this meant otters used stones as tools to open clams so it became "Any object that has been modified to increase efficiency for a purpose outside of its natural scope." Then we had video of apes stripping leaves from branches to stick them in anthills... and the revision continues on ad infinitum because heaven forbid that humans have to share the title of "Tool-maker/user" with lesser beings.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Of course power tools and alcohol don't mix. Everyone knows power tools aren't soluble in alcohol..." -- Crazy Nigel

Working...