Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Not Unexpected (Score 1) 87

I'm not sure you are correct. The court itself said the term was ambiguous and undefined by the legislation. Claiming that a change from an earlier interpretation is "only strictly interpreting the text of the law as written" does not, therefore, seem a valid statement.

OTOH, it may well be easily within a reasonable interpretation of the law as written. But the summary didn't present an argument that the earlier interpretation isn't also within a reasonable interpretation of the law as just said the judges felt it was too lenient. Not the same thing at all.

This is, however, another good reason why the DMCA should be repealed. So should the previous copyright act (the Sony Bono copyright act). Actually, I think that should be repealed all the way back until the term of the copyright was 17 years, and even that had severe problems. Most copyrights should be valid for no longer than 5 years, though if there are excessive upfront costs a case could be made for extending the term to 10 years.

Comment Re:Misplaced effort (Score 1) 67

We need to keep working toward a system where our Senators and Representatives actually know what We The People want and need.

What makes you think that they don't? I'm rather certain that most of them know that most people don't want children used as experimental subjects without their parents permission. But the legislators have other priorities.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 235

There *IS* no conservative candidate for Presidency. A conservative is one who wishes to conserve some currently existing state or feature. I often think of myself as a conservative, though only on some issues. The Green party is traditionally the most conservative of the existing parties, but it's never been all that conservative. People who want to "go back to the good old days" are not conservative, they are reactionary. Being conservative often works, but being reactionary never does. See "Dollo's Law" with particular attention to why it is valid.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 235

This may depend on exactly how one interprets the phrase "wall". In a figurative sense one could interpret, e.g., the very existence of the border patrol as a wall. In that vein anything that one did to hinder immigration could be interpreted as fulfilling that pledge. Say letting contracts to build radar stations to companies that are subsidiaries of Trump, inc.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 235

It's not new. The specific ideas that they are intolerant about have changed, but there's long been a large group of people on slashdot that are intolerant of ideas they don't like. In this it reflects society pretty accurately. The difference is that consequences of intolerant actions (downvoting) are separated from intolerant speech. Some of the separation is in time, but other are not. If you prefer to vote something up, you look for ideas or statements that appeal to you. If you prefer to vote something down, you look for ideas or statements that distress you.

Comment Re: I don't agree that these are "conservative" vi (Score 1) 235

Go actually READ the Constitution. Parts of it apply to all people. Parts don't. They could use a bit of clarity in places, but it's usually pretty clearer. It's a LOT clearer than my state constitution. And it's not horrendously long. Only about five pages (depending, of course, and page size and font, but I'm thinking of 8 1/2X11 inch paper and 10 point Times-Roman...but this *is* an estimate, since it's been awhile since I printed it out).

But, e.g., "Congress shall make no law..." clearly indicates that a law in that area is forbidden to regulate ANYONE. Of course, before the Civil War it was expected that such areas would be regulated by the various states...but then never updated the Constitution when they changed to a powerful Federal Government weak State Government system. All they did was decide to "reinterpret" (i.e., ignore when convenient) what the constitution said. This was, and is, dereliction of duty. Probably misfeasance rather than malfeasance in the not fixing it arm of action, but clearly malfeasance in the enforcement arm. (In the case of the Supreme Court malfeasance seems more accurate than misfeasance.)

OTOH, it takes a long time to get an amendment through the adoption process. When something needs addressing quickly, you can't wait for the Constitution to be fixed. But ignoring that problem doesn't get the problem solved, it just sweeps it under the rug.

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 98

To be fair their website would not be equivalent to shouting in your basement. Google would index it, etc. But only people looking for the information would find it, and this appears to have been an advertisement intended to reach people who were not currently considering the problem. So their own web page wouldn't be a useful option.

Comment Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos (Score 1) 98

The temporary censorship is a problem, but not the major problem, as that was corrected. The major problem is that it was difficult to reach someone who both could and would address the problem. I've been in that situation so often that I find THAT problem hard to forgive.

Comment Re: Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photo (Score 1) 98

It's clear that they EVENTUALLY got in contact with Facebook, but possibly only indirectly. It's not at all clear whether this happened before or after the story hit the news. Having called technical support at some companies and been put on hold for over an hour, I'm not willing to give Facebook the benefit of the doubt. I could be wrong, but I'll require at least *some* evidence before I'll believe it.

Comment Re:Lighten up .... the people reviewing the photos (Score 1) 98

That's probably correct, but they made it difficult to contact them, which removes any excuse that "it was an automated system that did it" provides.

Yes, if they made it easy to contact them they'd probably get LOTS of complaints. Guess what, They OUGHT to get lots of complaints.

Personally, I don't understand why people are willing to use Facebook, but since they are there are they are a public accomodation. It's not quite the same as a monopoly, though there are certain similarities, strongly reinforced by the network effect. As such for them to refuse service should be a crime. When this is going on internationally, though, things get quite complex, so they have an obligation to make contact, explanation, and negotiation easy when they refuse service. When they don't I start seeing valid reasons for countries to refuse to allow them to do business within "their borders".

Comment Re:stupid managers making clueless requirements (Score 1) 237

First thought:
Not really true, but it could go into a mode where it only operated in a VERY degraded no external connectivity.

Second thought:
And I guess even that could fail if, say, the power went out, so I guess you're right after all.

The problem here is that "network failure" isn't well defined. Computer failure is, though, so if all the computers that ran the software went down, the network would have clearly failed. I'm sure they meant something different, but they don't seem to have been explicit about what they meant. (Betcha that "never goes down" came out of marketing, and they didn't know, or care, exactly what they meant.)

Comment Yes. (Score 1) 904

The problem is it needs to be phased in, and various support programs need to be phased out. Handling this smoothly will be difficult. And the transition period probably needs to be about 15 years.

Jobs ARE disappearing a lot faster than they are being created, and the population is growing. This does not augur well for social stability unless there is some universal support system. Basic Income is the universal support system that has the most push behind it. And we need a lot more effort put into virtual reality, so that people without jobs can find something that they will do rather than cause trouble. Of course, that itself will eliminate entire classes of jobs. But virtual reality when properly developed could replace gyms, schools, and many other activities. The "school" replacement could be essentially apprenticeship games.

Think of this as a high-tech version of "bread and circuses", but it needs to be done in a way that's less socially disruptive than Rome was forced into....and preferably before wide-scale civil war breaks out. (Again, check the history of Rome.)

If this is handled right we could be headed towards a utopia...but if it isn't we could be headed towards a profound dystopia. Unfortunately, I see very few signs that anyone with any power even realizes the problems.

Slashdot Top Deals

Despite all appearances, your boss is a thinking, feeling, human being.