Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Art doesn't need remuneration (Score 3, Insightful) 684

it takes a powerfully broken worldview to even begin to think that people only do create stuff so that they'll get paid.

Of course some stuff is created without thought to getting paid. But those things are less likely to use DRM anyway.

But you're going to cut down creation to a fraction of what it is if there's no profit motive. Say goodbye to feature films and big FPS games for example.

Goodbye! Thanks for all the fish! Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!

Comment Re:BitTorrent is not what they fear (Score 4, Informative) 187

But its cute to try and blame it on one particular ... protocol? I'm not sure what 'deal with bittorrent' means. I mean, I get the 'first 7 minutes to bittorrent users' but who is that exactly? People that use software from bittorrent inc? Anyone with a bittorrent client? Who are they actually talking about? Well thought out statement you have there.

If you visit http://www.bittorrent.com/ it will become quickly apparent what they mean, I think.

http://bundles.bittorrent.com/torrents/BitTorrent-ArthurNewman.torrent

I imagine they're seeding it.

Comment Re:and WHO are the movie studios in it for, us? (Score 5, Insightful) 187

The Screen Actors Guild is really uptight about making sure that every actor everywhere is in their union, to the point of fining its members if they perform in the same piece as an actor that isn't part of that union. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to kill this either, namely because indie studios might be more likely to stay away from that union because they can't afford to pay what any of its members demand.

If that leads to a series of entertaining films coming out that don't contain any members of the Screen Actors Guild, they're really going to be up shit creek.

Comment Re:"STEM" is a useless grouping (Score 1) 344

I don't really believe democracy is going to survive unless those who are not able bodied members of the work force are forcibly disenfranchised. The elderly dramatically outnumber the young, and they hold most of the wealth. There have been multiple generations of less than replacement level reproduction, and all the politicians and business leaders recognize that the situation is desperate, that we aren't capable of surviving on our own, but if we brought in the number of immigrants necessary to make up for all the babies we didn't have, we couldn't force them to support our aged population once they got here. The nations we would like to poach people from are a) suffering the same problem b) recent converts to our culture who have no reason to flee here c) able to recognize what we're about and actively hostile towards us. When we as a culture decided it was acceptable to entice women to exchange the children a woman would bear for the service she could provide us in the hear and now, we really fucked ourselves. Unless a lot of old people vote to throw themselves on their sword, what's going to happen is we're going to fritter away resources making their end days as comfortable as possible, when they should be used to set the ship aright and ensure a future. We're also going to make enemies of those destined to inherit the world from us, trying to use economic and military force to compel them to serve us.

I think the sensible thing for an able bodied person to do is to attempt to migrate to a young and vibrant culture... I've been considering Brazil.

Comment Re:lame (Score 1) 629

Since we're all conjecturing anyways...

Oooh, I want to play.

Perhaps there are intelligent entities out there who will interact with 'us' after we assemble ourselves into a higher form of life, just as we have been assembled from lower forms of life.

Flying around the planet for a business meeting would seem pretty outrageous to a single celled organism. On interstellar scales, we are the single celled organisms.

We're going to have to successfully grow our population to levels that boggle the mind before we become significant, and even then, we're going to have as much chance to interact with aliens in their own environment as a human white blood cell has of chatting up a cell from a dogs liver. We're going to be structural components in such a scenario, so most of us will exist our whole lives "inside" the "body", except those that are born to be "skin".

Going further, the intelligences involved would have concerns as far removed from our own that we wouldn't have any chance of recognizing them. Their lifespans would be vastly beyond our own, the way our own lifespan is vastly greater than a skin cell.

When you get right down to it, it's entirely possible this is already going on. How the hell would we recognize such a thing?

Comment Re:"STEM" is a useless grouping (Score 4, Insightful) 344

And I don't mean this as a neo-luddite "computers are taking our jobs" kind of way, just that the set of skills that are unique to humanity are shrinking. We're running, as fast as we can, at a point where ownership of capital is the only factor for success in a free-market economy.

That's when the blood begins to flow. And rightly so.

Comment Re:Oh boy. (Score 4, Funny) 194

What's troll-y is claiming that you don't see how that language could annoy anyone. There is a perfectly suitable gender-neutral word that makes exactly the same point. It's 2013 ffs.

When I read stuff like "stewardess", I think old-timer or non-native-English speaker.

And yes I realize this is /. and /. is not know for being a bastion of progressive thought on gender and bias. But sometimes I get annoyed at careless crap like the above and attempt to piss into the wind. Sue me.

No one's going to sue you, cupcake. Just be a dear and make me a sandwich, hmmm?

Comment Re:Big Difference (Score 2, Insightful) 135

There's a huge difference between operating under a pseudonym to avoid gender bias and manufacturing blatant lies specifically intended to defraud.

Dontcha think? Dontcha?

No, not really. The goal to mislead is the same. The lengths gone to are a matter of degree, and the degree required comes from society, not the individual. If he could have achieved the same goal with less effort, he would have.

Comment Re:Obvious (Score 4, Insightful) 135

If it had been a woman, posing as a man, there would be a big discussion about how it was reasonable for her to do that, because it gave her a chance to have her work judged without having to deal with peoples pro-male bias. It used to be pretty common, particularly when you're in a situation where you don't actually meet the people you're doing business with. Writers operating under a pseudonym, for example.

So, he lied, and took advantage of peoples pro-female bias. And, people react with anger, just like people of a previous generation reacted with anger. People genuinely believe that men SHOULD have to work harder to get ahead. That's why they're mad. Because their prejudice is heartfelt.

Comment Re:Limited Data Set (Score 1) 270

Unfortunately, "more transparency" was used incorrectly as what we really would like to achieve is a more transparent government and a less transparent society.

But your response does highlight the fact that you really do believe that you will be safest when you have no more rights. Such a thought is abhorent to many a good patriot here in the states.

I don't want the right to hide. I want the right to see. If you prefer hiding to seeing, makes me think you're either a coward or a criminal. Maybe both. I certainly don't see it as sane and wise to participate in a democracy with people who keep secrets.

Comment Re:The Zero Accountability Rumor Mill (Score 1) 270

"Removing anonymity would remove the mob mentality effect, and allow us to exploit the power of this type of technology for good purpose."

The fact that some innocent people got undeserved attention is hardly a convincing reason to do away with anonymous free speech.
If you want to talk about a "lynch mob" mentality, look at what happens to people who dare question the politically correct orthodoxy in this country. Dr. James Watson, a Nobel Prize winning geneticist lost his job and position on the board of directors at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory because he made some politically incorrect comments about race and genetic differences. The guy was an EXPERT in the field of genetics but was persecuted for saying something that the witch hunters didn't want to hear.
Two high school students in FL posted a YouTube video where they made "racist" comments and had to be taken out of their school because they were getting death threats.
As long as people are going to be subjected to reprisal and violence for speaking unpopular opinions, we need anonymous free speech.

That's terrible. We really should look into that... death threats are not ok. Who were the people who made the death threats?

Oh, right. We don't know, because they were made anonymously.

Reminds me of a lecture I heard recently, talking about a woman who was being stalked by her ex-boyfriend. They were attempting to make the point that she needed privacy protection to keep her safe.

All I could think is, restricting access to this lady's information isn't going to stop him from sitting in his car and following her. It might make things a little more difficult, but only marginally.

On the other hand, if this lady had access to pervasive surveillance infrastructure, she would KNOW when her creepy ex was following her. She would know that she should stay close to others, not wander off alone, perhaps alert others that she felt in danger, or leave the area entirely if she felt it was justified.

The whole argument is backwards.

Comment Re:Limited Data Set (Score 1) 270

Unless I'm mistaken, in the UK, they allow the public to view the CCTV feeds. Little old ladies who used to peek out their window can now assist with enforcing a minimum standard of behavior. The problem as you've identified it would be eliminated if there was more transparency.

It sounds like the UK has a bigger problem: the pervasiveness of government CCTV feeds is so great that they can allow the public to look at them. Most CCTV feeds in the US are privately owned (businesses). Your "more transparency" comes at the expense of a much less privacy.

I do not value privacy. I would rather you be less ignorant, and the only way to achieve that is to push to have you better informed, systematically.

Comment Re:Limited Data Set (Score 1) 270

Except this case shows why crowd sourcing this type of thing shouldn't be done, and you say it yourself: they did not have access to all of the data and information. Government officials will have statements from eye witnesses, footage from CCTV, physical evidence at the scene, etc. All the online "detectives" have access to is what was released by the media: some photos and ramblings of reporters who themselves had access to incomplete data. And this only compounded the problem when a mainstream "news" source like the New York Post went to Reddit instead of the government for ID of the suspects in an effort to be the first to broadcast pictures. It basically comes down to this: if you aren't there on the ground, if you don't have hands-on access to the raw, unfiltered data, you do not know everything and you need to shut the hell up, because all you are doing is spreading more disinformation at a time when the signal to noise ratio is already heavily skewed towards the noise.

Basically, incomplete data leads to inaccurate analysis

Unless I'm mistaken, in the UK, they allow the public to view the CCTV feeds. Little old ladies who used to peek out their window can now assist with enforcing a minimum standard of behavior. The problem as you've identified it would be eliminated if there was more transparency.

Slashdot Top Deals

One good suit is worth a thousand resumes.

Working...