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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:"...disabled by default." (Score 3, Insightful) 178

We can hope, but I'm not counting on it. I think it's just as likely that by the time that happens, having the computer locked down so that only OS maker-"approved" apps can run might be mandated by law because "only hackers would run un-'approved' software" or some other such BS.

Comment Apples and Oranges (Score 5, Insightful) 113

It seems 2 different things to me. The content producers and the content distributors are different groups with different specialties. The top producers and physical studios can rent themselves out to Netflix if the deal is right, for example. Neither is stapled to each other.

The fact that Netflix and Amazon have produced a hit or two doesn't mean they will take over most content production. If they find a nice niche, competitors will copy that niche.

Comment Re:That's a new war (Score 2) 88

The only way to get sufficient competition is to make "the last mile" into a public utility, but allow many content providers in. They don't have run a jillion lines, only hook up to regional routing nodes. By not having to get into the mass wiring business, more content providers can enter the market.

Comment Re:Do we need more evidence... (Score 1) 188

You just accept them because you are affiliated with the same party.

THAT'S A GODDAMNED LIE.

See, that's exactly the short of fucked-up false-dichotomy thinking I was complaining about in the first place! I'm a LIBERTARIAN , not a Democrat.

The Clintons, both of them, are every bit as horrible as Trump.

That's the thing, THEY'RE REALLY NOT. The Clinton's are horrible in a "normal" corrupt-big-government sort of way, but they PALE IN COMPARSION to the damage to civil liberties and democracy itself that Trump is doing! The Clintons never (a) kicked the media out of white house briefings, (b) stuffed their administration full of LITERAL WHITE SUPREMACISTS, attempted to normalize lying to the public in a strategy straight out of 1984 or Mein Kampf, or done any of a hundred other ACTUALLY, LITERALLY, AND WITHOUT EXAGGERATION FASCIST things!

Comment Re:O RLY? (Score 2) 65

I understand what copyright is intended to do, but I see little evidence that a 90+ year term and other onerous terms are means to this goal.

I'd be the first to agree that the current implementation of copyright is deeply flawed in several ways, including the steady creep up to the current absurd durations you mentioned. I am in no way supporting that side of the copyright system, as you can tell by many other posts I've made including to this very discussion.

However, most use of copyrighted work both by creators and by pirates still happens in the first few years, and in practice shortening the duration to something much more reasonable seems unlikely to affect the behaviour of either side very much. The basic principle is still that copyright establishes similar market incentives to create information-based products to the incentives established by respecting physical private property when it comes to creating physical products.

And of course, as Google points out, the search index could not have occurred under such a regime. I shouldn't have to sell you on the usefulness of internet search on society[...]

I'm something of a skeptic in that regard. My personal suspicion is that if we didn't have the likes of Google indexing everything, we'd just have evolved some other sort of directory/index system, along with including more explicit links in our Web content and probably making more use of bookmarks for starting points relevant to our personal interests. There were already plenty of moves in these directions in parallel with early search engine development, some much more promising than others, and the natural connectedness of the Web would lend itself just fine to scaling up these sorts of alternatives.

Maybe that would even have become a better system than what we have today. By its nature, an automated search engine will always be vulnerable to gaming whatever system it implements. Today's arrangement also locates an awful lot of power centrally with the big search engines, even though they are ultimately only useful because of any good content created by others that they help a visitor to find. When sites that would be of interest to visitors can rise and fall almost entirely by a change in the ranking algorithm at a search engine, over which the site has no control and for which the search engine has no accountability, I'm not sure everything is really working as wonderfully as we sometimes assume.

Automation has so far proven to be a questionable benefit over curation, and while it's certainly true that today's search engines are often better for finding interesting or useful information than the portals and web rings of the 1990s, that's not really a fair comparison. It's called web browsing for a reason, and I truly think we've lost something that had great potential there with the rise of the search engines.

Comment Re:You do not get to define innovation for anyone (Score 2) 65

When Google first launched their search engine, they didn't have ads in the way they and many other free-to-use online services do today. They were one of the pioneers of the modern online world where everything is expected to be "free", privacy is invaded routinely, advertising of questionable value to almost everyone other than the ad networks dominates, and web pages are so full of tracking and advertising junk that an entire ecosystem of tools had to be invented just to make the web not suck more than it did 20 years ago. Whatever benefits any of Google's services might have offered relative to the alternatives we had before, I'm still not sure it was worth the trade-off.

Comment Re:O RLY? (Score 1) 65

Given that vastly more work is created and that work is distributed to vastly more people under copyright-supported activities than via any other economic model in human history, I think your "making it less efficient" claim needs some supporting evidence.

The point of copyright is to create an effective market where the same sorts of effects that motivate making more and better physical products also motivate making more and better creative works.

Slashdot Top Deals

Practical people would be more practical if they would take a little more time for dreaming. -- J. P. McEvoy

Working...