Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:He wrote it to share files... (Score 1) 365

The reason that your code, podcasts, and online videos are hosted in special purpose web applications is that they understand the format and purpose of your data. This will always allow them to be more featureful, as they are full fledged applications. You are comparing them to a file transfer protocol, which is disingenuous.

Rsync is optimised for replicating frequently changing collections of small files, and is widely used for that purpose, and it peer to peer. You seem to be arguing that there is little legal need for sharing large binary files. You must not edit video collaboratively, or develop and distribute indie games, or train neural nets, or share language corpora, or any number of other possible legal uses. The fact that it is widely used to share cultural ephemera is more a testament to advertising and poor education than a problem with a protocol.

Comment Re:Institutional Incompetence v "Conspiracy Theori (Score 1) 828

Clearly, the best way to discuss falsification in science is to cast it as a discussion between a cannibalistic dictator and a strawman.

“He can compress the most words into the smallest ideas of any man I ever met” - Abraham Lincoln

"!" - Phillip J. Fry

Comment Re:Motives (Score 1) 260

Do you mean those non-serviceable mustard gas shells? If that's all that they found, then it's particularly clear that Iraq DID destroy their stockpiles. Finding a few shells only indicates that their compliance was not perfect. I will sleep so much better (and poorer) now that our intelligence agencies have removed their old foil against Iran.

Comment Re:Democracy and Responsibility (Score 1) 260

Wow. Paranoid more than just a little? It couldn't possibly be that there are people who honestly disagree with you could it?

It could be. In fact, it's likely. However, do not doubt the propaganda efforts of the government. The DoD and many other organizations absolutely employ astroturf bloggers. Their posts are often as sincere as yours, but rarely as condescending.

Comment Re:Carlin (Score 1) 205

Don't conflate crazy with unsuccessful. Go watch some videos of him and notice him pacing around the stage unshaven, in sweatpants, bloodshot eyes, ranting and shouting into the microphone at the audience.

Interesting that you focus on his appearance, not the substance of his monologues. You also seem to be unaware that nearly all performers are performing in character on stage. If you don't like his shtick, fine, but trying to use it to pretend he was crazy just makes you look ignorant. Do you believe that Steven Colbert is an arch-conservative?

Comment Re:What about MY right to not listen?.. (Score 1) 698

What about MY right to not listen?

No one is disputing your right to not listen. In fact, that's the only workable course of action here.

Just as your fist's freedom of movement ends at my face, your speech's freedom ends at my ears, if I so choose.

Assault is a felony. Insult, embarassment, and offense is the price of free speech and sentience.

If FCC can limit swearing on public airwaves, police can do it too -- even if the waves are in different medium and frequency...

The FCC has a very specific mission, curtailed by law, to enforce standards on a very limited resource, the radio. As the ACLU has demonstrated, the police do not have this power. Perhaps municipalities will attempt to legislate the issue, as you suggest. Then the ACLU will challenge them, and win, on first amendment grounds.

I'm a big supporter of civility, but that has to come from improving relations between cultures and classes, not enforced by fines, truncheons, and bullets.

Comment Re:Is it just D&D ? (Score 2, Insightful) 496

In my opinion, either the Bible is correct or it is useless.

I can agree with this statement wholeheartedly.

However, even if you believe that revelatory knowledge is a source of truth, how could the Bible be correct? There are two conflicting stories of creation in the first chapter alone. The Catholic church decided which early Christian writings were canonical, and which were not. Do you think that they were divinely inspired? Catholics accept many apocryphal books as worthy of study, but other denominations disagree:

In 1546 the Catholic Council of Trent reconfirmed the canon of Augustine, dating to the second and third centuries, declaring "He is also to be anathema who does not receive these entire books, with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church, and are found in the ancient editions of the Latin Vulgate, as sacred and canonical." The whole of the books in question, with the exception of 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses, were declared canonical at Trent. The Protestants, in comparison, were diverse in their opinion of the deuterocanon. Some considered them divinely inspired, others rejected them. Anglicans took a position between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches; they kept them as Christian intertestamental readings and a part of the Bible, but no doctrine should be based on them. John Wycliffe, a 14th century Christian Humanist, had declared in his biblical translation that "whatever book is in the Old Testament besides these twenty-five shall be set among the apocrypha, that is, without authority or belief." Nevertheless, his translation of the Bible included the apocrypha and the Epistle of the Loadiceans.

So, was it divine inspiration that struck a church council in 1546? Were the Protestants right? Do you believe, as many Protestants do, in KJV only? What about recently found books, such as the Gospel of Judas. Is that book divine? It's certainly closer to the original sources. It seems to me that without even agreement on which books should be included, calling it correct or incorrect is a useless endeavor, as its contents vary from church to church.

Comment Re:then excuse me, but you are stupid and naive (Score 1) 775

...once mechanisms to prevent 'copyright abuses' are in place, the same mechanisms can also easily be used to prevent any 'undesirable' sources of opinion, information or activity. once gates and controls are in place, no upstart will be coming up politically or business wise and upsetting the power balance that is already established...

I'm not interested in having those freedoms of which you speak.

You're not interested in being able to choose which sources of information you can use? You're not interested in being able to use the political system to change the status quo? Those are the only freedoms he spoke of, so what do you find objectionable?

I'm guessing you won't be happy until the Internet is as interesting as American TV.

Comment Re:Bunk (Score 1) 289

What a dumb shit you are, not knowing what "explicit" means. I'd cowardly anonymize myself too if I were that stupid.

Hey, watch the language! Kids read this page.

Couldn't you have just implied that he was a dumb shit? Or maybe you could have been interrupted by some situation right before you said, and I quote, "dumb shit". That would have been witty and tasteful!

Slashdot Top Deals

In computing, the mean time to failure keeps getting shorter.