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


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

Comment Re:You can stop funding the people that harm you. (Score 1) 142

In my view, having followed this from the beginning, Paramount's most likely motivation was to protect the consumers.

Couple of interesting points:
1. They never sued Renegades, even though they had highly recognizable names in it. And that's a completed movie, not an "in production" movie.
2. They never sued Horizon, another completed movie, and one that was leaps and bounds more watchable than Renegades IMO, especially given the minimal budget.

There is a lot of speculation that Peters has not put the 1.4 million dollars he raised toward the actual film, but instead toward various personal expenses, the construction of a studio intended for commercial use, and the lawsuit of course (pro bono isn't actually free). Donor money should not have gone to any of those things (though in the case of the studio, it could just be a case of poor judgement on his part; rental studios are a dime a dozen in Hollywood, and far cheaper than building your own).

Lo and behold, it's only Axanar they went after.

My guess? I think they were concerned about the Star Trek brand being associated with a con man. Do some research on Alec Peters; at best, you'll find a great many questions (even if you ignore the legitimate haters -- and there are FAR fewer of those than Peters himself would have you believe).

Comment Re:Goodbye, good movie (Score 2) 142

He didn't just copy the look and feel.

He took entire designs wholesale; Klingon ships, at least one Federation ship, etc.; he took the exact names of the fictional nations involved; he even used actual Star Trek screen-used costumes. But most damningly, he took at least one whole character for use in Axanar.

Interestingly, the character I'm referring to isn't from TOS, but rather from Enterprise, which is much more recent.

Comment Re:this is all very odd (Score 2) 22

For anything expensive, sure. But this isn't for that - the buttons are for things you already use, already have decided you like, and don't want to have to think about running out of. I have one for trash bags, for example. I don't need to spend time thinking about trash bags, I just need more to magically appear when I'm nearly out.

It's a convenience, nothing more.

Comment Re:Only a fraction of US munitions... (Score 1) 199

People often make the argument that some individual terrorist/liberation movements are "special" in that they are driven by a core ideology which is irrational and has no connection to the real world and that the only solution is to "nuke them".
Every liberation movement arises from an injustice which has the support of a broader group of people. ISIS would not be able to recruit anyone if it were just an irrational ideology. It draws from a large group of people who see some injustice. ISIS then magnifies and distorts that injustice to radicalize people to do all of the "irrational" actions.
If you look at all liberation movements, they have this same characteristic. Small conflicts gave rise to movements (here's a long list of liberation/terrorist movements ). There are also larger movements such as the Nazis in Europe where a very large group of people were suffering economic injustice, chose a scapegoat and performed "irrational" atrocities on a large scale. The voters for Trump in the US were similar. They perceived economic injustice; Trump provided a few handy scapegoats (Mexicans, Chinese, etc.) and they made an irrational vote to elect a charlatan who promptly betrayed them.
It doesn't really matter that in each of these cases, the scapegoats were "innocent" and that there were other real causes of the injustice.
All of these movements can be countered by addressing the injustice. This will dry up the source of recruits and the popular support for the movement. Bombing only makes things worse.
However, often it will be difficult (or impossible) to address the underlying injustice. For instance, in the US, the neoliberal capitalist system which is creating economic injustice is so well entrenched that it will be extremely difficult to change. Similarly, the multiple complex injustices in the middle east are probably beyond the ability of anyone to address. That does not mean that bombing is the answer. Probably the best the US (and the West) can do is to try to remove themselves as a target by leaving the area and stop meddling in areas where we have no understanding or appreciation of the complex dynamics.

Comment Not so much for iOS (Score 2) 79

It's worth pointing out that iOS doesn't allow apps to access the MAC, IMEI or any other persistent unique ID field (for just this reason). There is a unique ID field designed for apps to use for device identification but it is generated by the device on a per application basis, so it cannot be correlated with other apps. It also changes if you reinstall the app. Both of these facts make it fairly useless for nefarious purposes.

Submission + - Neuroscience Does Not Compute (

mspohr writes: The Economist has an interesting story about two neuroscientists/engineers who decided to test the methods of neuroscience using a 6502 processor. Their results are published in the PLOS Computational Biology journal.
Neuroscientists explore how the brain works by looking at damaged brains and monitoring inputs and outputs to try to infer intermediate processing. They did the same with the 6502 processor which was used in early Atari, Apple and Commodore computers.
What they discovered was that these methods were sorely lacking in that they often pointed in the wrong direction and missed important processing steps.

Comment Re:Translation of the headline: (Score 1) 94

How on earth would Microsoft "thoroughly integrate" something so that "you can't uninstall or or disable it" on a platform owned and controlled by Google. You know, their competitor? Feel free to continue using your phone of choice but at least have a basic understanding of something before jerking your knees so hard you knock the table over.

Submission + - Zuckerberg sues hundreds of Hawaiians to force property sales to him. (

mmell writes: Apparently, owning 700 acres of land in Hawaii isn't enough — Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, has filed suit to force owners of several small parcels of land to sell to the highest bidder. The reason? These property owners are completely surrounded by Zuckerberg's land holdings and therefore have lawful easement to cross his property in order to get to theirs.

Many of these land owners have held their land for generations, but seemingly Mr. Zuckerberg can not tolerate their presence so close to his private little slice of paradise. Landowners such as these came to own their land when their ancestors were "given" the land as Hawaiian natives.

If successful in his "quiet title" court action, Mr. Zuckerberg will finally have his slice of Hawaii's beaches and tropical lands without having to deal with the pesky presence of neighbors who were on his land before he owned it. Who knew that Hawaiians were just another kind of Native Americans?

Slashdot Top Deals

Ask five economists and you'll get five different explanations (six if one went to Harvard). -- Edgar R. Fiedler