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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Holy Crap (Score 5, Informative) 450

This summary has almost nothing to do with the underlying article, and the headline draws a completely erroneous conclusion. It isn't about Americans being bad study subjects at all, but rather the idea that extrapolating between two cultural groups that have vastly different environments is much harder than previously thought.

Comment Re:Minimum Wage = Inflation (Score 1) 1106

Increasing wages are in fact usually the first sign of inflation. Why do you think we can have the government and central banks printing money at warp 9 (the printers are going to blow Captain!) now, and we still don't have more than 2% inflation?

Because there is a big labor surplus keeping a cap on labor costs, that's why.

Phillips Curve:

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1364/economics/phillips-curve-explained/

Comment Re:The very term "intellectual property" is misgui (Score 1) 150

> And yet we live in a world where every artist / writer / collective CAN have their own publishing company and it is trivial to set up.

Sure, they can do that, which is a really cool thing. However back in 1787 the problems of being a publisher were much more severe. Ben Franklin had all kinds of issues publishing his periodicals, including such basic things like there being an extremely limited supply of paper in the US. The history of RittenhouseTown is pretty interesting if you are interested.

And can is NOT the same as SHOULD. Authors aren't necessarily interested in being publishers. It is said that the really good writers write because they MUST write. Is it reasonable public policy to force them to be publishers as well?

It think the idea is ridiculous.

Comment Re:The very term "intellectual property" is misgui (Score 1) 150

> No ownership required. The copyright holder would simply hire a publisher to print his works and pay them their fee, he would then be free to sell his works for whatever he could get for them. If he is popular enough he gets rich, if his works suck he goes out of business. That's the American way.

That still forces the author to put down his typewriter and run a distributions and sales enterprise. Sorry, but it's not acceptable to force this sort of structure.

When the Constitution was put into force the Statute of Anne had been in place for something like 80 years, and authors selling copyright along with their manuscript was well established. The idea that the Founders anticipated a system where these rights could not be sold is preposterous.

Comment Chinese Army (Score 4, Insightful) 214

Ugh.

If some surfer dude from Oz can do this imagine what the Chinese Army and the TLAs have gotten into.

I don't know is this is good or bad, Mutually Assured Destruction can be a good thing, as well as can be the dissemination of information.

However it sure should give people pause when they put a server online. Or make their bank accounts available on the web.

It might be a case of not if but when.

Comment Re:The very term "intellectual property" is misgui (Score 2) 150

It would be perverse indeed to assume that the founders intended a system where every copyright holder would have to own a publishing company. Because that is exactly what you are proposing.

It was certainly NOT true under English law that this was the case, and there is no evidence that such was the intent of the founders to require this.

The existing process in English law included the sale of the copyright to publishers, and in fact this process was encouraged by people like John Locke when the reform of Licensing led to the Statute of Anne.

Slashdot Top Deals

Only God can make random selections.

Working...