Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Hoarders (Score 1) 249

Things every generation ever has said.

Things which have been true for every generation! Well, there were some setbacks scientifically, but those people generally had to deal with a lot of strife so they weren't really wrong.

There's no need to have a short copyright term (though the recent extensions are silly),

Right, and all I'm doing is arguing against the extensions.

instead we need to change what copyright means, so that you can't restrict the distribution or prevent derivative works

I'm not seeing why your plan is better than my plan.

I see no problem with the creator continuing to profit for a long time from some creative work,

I see two problems. The first problem is a problem for society. The purpose of copyright is to promote works. But permitting someone to profit from a long time from a work doesn't promote more work, it promotes resting on laurels. The other problem is that once the material enters the collective subconscious, it really ought to belong to all of us. If you can't get it out of your life, it shouldn't be permitted to belong to a corporation. That doesn't actually benefit anyone except the corporation's shareholders. And Disney has been making damned sure that doesn't happen for quite some time now.

The problem comes when copyright blocks further creative progress, and that is fixed by mandatory FRAND licensing.

I disagree strenuously. It is fixed by reasonably copyright terms, where those terms are much shorter than a human lifespan — as they were originally. The terms were not extended to benefit the people, but to benefit corporate interests.

Comment Re:Most of the problems listed have a single cause (Score 1) 445

I think you are pretty close stating religion as the cause; from what I see every war that has ever been waged has been a banker's war... over who owns what.

You've got it. Personal property is the root of all evil. Doesn't matter whether you're claiming dominion over a piece of ground, or a piece of food, or a piece of ass. When you act selfishly, others will get left out.

Comment Re:Nothing is ever that simple (Score 2) 445

Science has particularly unsatisfactory answers to "Why am I here?", "Where am I going?", "Why do bad things happen to me and not others?", "Did I do ok with my life?", etc.

So it's just like religion then.

It pretty much lacks any sort of philosophy as to how one should live their life.

That's a load of cockery. Science tells us how we should live our life if we want to accomplish particular goals. For example, if we want to continue to have a climate which supports our existence, we have to stop shitting all over our environment.

Add in that many people probably don't want to spend that much time thinking on such and the societal need for exactly that to continue functioning smoothly, and you have why atheism just doesn't appeal to human nature.

I'm a human. Atheism appeals to my nature. Atheism appeals to human nature. Some people have been scared into thinking that they need religion, though.

Mankind has had philosophy for much longer than science, and it is more important to mankind than science.

Just because we weren't calling it science doesn't mean we didn't have science. People came up with hypotheses and tested them before we knew what a hypothesis was.

Comment Re:Hoarders (Score 1) 249

Just in general, any time there's a spectrum of ways to do things, and you find yourself arguing for one extreme end of the spectrum because the other extreme end of the spectrum is bad, you should stop and reconsider.

Extreme depends on where you're standing. The first "copyright" law on the books related to the library at Alexandria. Pass through the harbor, you have to permit copying of any books you have on hand. That was intended to preserve and promote works. What we have today is the opposite. Today's copyright law actively works against saving these materials for posterity. I'd say that arguing for modern copyright is arguing for one extreme end of the spectrum. On the other end, there's copyright which serves the people. In the middle, there's no copyright at all.

Comment Re:They printed off assembler (Score 1) 211

Whatever your complaints about your job, at least debugging your code doesn't involve stepping through assembly on a pencil and paper virtual machine.

Sounds almost like writing, testing, and debugging JavaScript full of anonymous spaghetti functions for 13 different browser variations. At least with brand new stuff, you make your own mess.

Comment Re:Needless? (Score 1) 361

That's spelling not communication. Anyone half literate would understand the intended meaning perfectly. If small spelling mistakes that are trivially corrected by the phonetic value cause you communication problems then I would say it is you with the poor communication skills. Do you make everyone write things down so you don't get confused by homonyms?

Comment Re:Government Involvement (Score 1) 499

Further, the car analogy fails because there is no government requiring you to own a car.

No it doesn't. You don't have to own a car but it is, however, a fact of life that you have to be alive to have life. In that sense health insurance is far more important than auto insurance.

The rest of your post continues to illustrate my point. You keep throwing out strawmen like "nanny state" and "insinuate itself into every minute aspect of ones[sic] life". That's not reasoning; that's manipulation. You rabidly shoot(updated for American audiences) your nose off to spite your face for some dogmatic ideal of "freedom". The rest of the world sees through these political and corporate planted "opinions" as nothing more than a way to protect profits. The American people want universal health care- they're just too dogmatically opposed to certain words to be able to explain it without huge amounts of cognitive dissonance. Which is trivial to see in your post. You don't make rational statements; you make emotional pleas.

Your government tells you what to do and buy all the time you twit and probably on the high end of the spectrum compared to other western countries. You don't oppose health care for "freedom" and you know it. You oppose it because you are told to.

Just because something is successful doesn't necessarily make it a good thing. By that logic the success of McDonald's hamburgers is a good thing for the food industry.

That's a pretty glaring false equivalence. Health care and unhealthy American food are pretty much as far apart as things can get. But if you would care to explain how keeping society healthy and productive, doing it cheaper than the American system and reducing crime is not a good thing then I would love to hear it. I'm sorry helping your neighbour occasionally is un-American but it's just part of being a civilized nation.

Comment Re:Government Involvement (Score 1) 499

The difference is meaningless. Those sick people are still society's problem even if they haven't bought into private insurance (possibly a larger problem). Society is, by definition, a group effort and you just can't opt out of every part of it just because you want to save some money.

I assume that in United States' law you are required to hold private insurance on your motor vehicle? We do in my country and although annoying it certainly hasn't destroyed civilization. Nor has a universal health care system. This is where the "mountains of contradictory evidence" comes in. Many places in the world use these systems and they end up being much more successful than the American "pass the buck" system. How can you continue to assert the awfulness of these systems when they've proven themselves highly successful?

Maybe the people that need to "sit down and shut up" are the ones that are hysterically shouting doom over something most other western nations have enjoyed for years.

Slashdot Top Deals

Counting in binary is just like counting in decimal -- if you are all thumbs. -- Glaser and Way