Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment as someone with a hereditary parkinsonian disorder (Score 1) 367

(parkinson class of disorders, not parkinson's disease - very related, not the same) - I chose to not have kids. Bummed my wife out quite a lot, but I told her I was also ok with raising the children of her pick of donors - I even made a few suggestions. Either way, my disease is under study, extremely rare, and currently un-named; it's also dominant-trait, and generally is rather minor in the impact it has on my family members what that have it. Gene editing for disease control? How about we just get screening for it figured out, that's a bit easier and less...dangerous. To edit out my parkinsonian disorder, you'd already have past the screening step, so...just toss the embryos that have the disorder, keep the others, all set. Tada! Easy editing that solves the stated goal without causing the stated concerns. That said, my condition could very likely be solved some day by some sort of blood nanites, since control of my disease is actually somewhat simple enough already (albeit manual) of self-monitoring of dopamine levels, and then taking sinemet as-needed...so the other thing poster talked about that isn't gene-editing, that could be useful too. Risk to humanity? Probably. (ps, rambling is a sign I need to take a pill...ha! thanks for letting me know earlier than I would have, slashdot!)

Comment Re:Not totally true (Score 3, Interesting) 109

many people actually let google "know" who they are during their surfing, so if they google for the porn their google account has a record of it. Instead of doing the easier/better bit of opening a "private" tab or whatnot, they subject themselves to bing. That would be my guess for such a thing being true, if it is.

Comment Re:Guilty by omission? (Score 1) 220

what is it you think defines the words "social" and "media," for starters, and why is it you seem to be incapable of looking up "social media" online to see that it most certainly includes places like this? We're interacting. That's a form of socialization. Forums aren't direct private messages, sure, but we're certainly communicating somewhat interactively. "Media" doesn't just mean videos and music, either. Oddly though, combining "social" and "media" doesn't really match what "social media" means, since it is restricted to online activities...one can be social via media without it being online, but this here - Slashdot - is certainly a website for users to post information, communicate, share ideas, etc. The exact definition of "social media." It was started with that exact purpose, and retains that exact purpose. It's not the same website as facebook, but neither is twitter.

Comment Re:Guilty by omission? (Score 1) 220

Well here's how Webster defines it: "forms of electronic communication (such as Web sites) through which people create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, etc." What of that do you not think is the core purpose of this website? Users post news bits, we all get on to discuss news bits, we have friends and foes, we rate each other...where in that are you getting lost? Propose a better definition for the term, otherwise. Explain how yours is more correct than what a google for "define: social media" turns up.

Comment Re:Guilty by omission? (Score 1, Insightful) 220

::blink:: Do you not realize, for some reason, that Slashdot is a social media site? And what, precisely, is it that you think makes google+, linkedin, facebook, twitter, or more or less most of the major social media sites..."childish?" Granted, I myself don't have accounts on any but google+, and only that because I've made a few reviews on maps, but..it's 2016. Calling the act of being social online "childish" makes you sound both 80, and out of touch. Especially when the complaint is being made on a social media site.

Comment so what you're saying is... (Score 1) 79

Symantec actively makes Linux and UNIX less secure? Because other than the insanity Lennart Poettering gave us, I fail to see what a proper UNIX system would need with a symantec scanner. It's been far too long now for the myth of UNIX being insecure in the same ways (note the wording...) to still persist.

Comment for those wondering about the words... (Score 1) 1080

ism: a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement. So, Capital-ism, versus social-ism. One focuses on wealth and costs, one focuses on social (human) aspects. As much as Finland is scared of it, yes - free healthcare, free education, intervention in various industries - that's socialism. The US itself isn't purely capitalistic, no, but we're the closest that anyone has ever been in the history of mankind. The "global" entities are very capitalistic - globalism itself is. Ship the labor to where ever it is cheapest, to make the widgets the cheapest, to hell with the anyone anywhere other than the 0.01%. That is, absolutely, capitalism. The pursuit of capital and wealth growth.

Comment Re:It's too late now. (Score 3, Insightful) 154

This. The mega-corps like Google, Apple, and MS offshoring (or insisting on H1Bs) and avoiding taxes is a lot of why we're having our current problem. The Gov already *did* this for us - they invented the Internet (as an example), which Gates thought was a passing fad, and then the ultra-elite moved the rewards of the monetization of it offshore. Timothy Berners-Lee has a net worth of 1/1600th of Gates, yet none of us would be having this convo without him. Either TBL gained too little, BG gained too much, a bit of both, or...? But the greed of the ultra-rich is the problem here, not under-investment by the government.

Comment Re:Short-term benefit? (Score 1) 211

first, you're losing the context of the entire conversation. The convo started with research - papers and such being snagged by google and cited by people who didn't pay into it. An author of non-fiction put real work into what they did. They also have a lot more say in how their material is published. Some direct-publish. Many try to publish via electronic books. You're saying to hell with them getting paid, let them find another way. Second, the 100% reality of the situation is that the only people getting paid in the scheme you're supporting is the richest of the richest. The few hundred wealthiest people on the planet. That is what you're supporting. If you were advocating some sort of sharing system where authors got paid, and no one got paid for turning you into a product, then great. But the only way google makes money is by you a person as a product. They dehumanize you, and make money off selling your info (or access to those with your info).

Comment Re:Short-term benefit? (Score 1) 211

I'm not defending publishers - they can rot. Google is, btw, a publisher in this case. Not in a manner that most would have thought legal, but they are still publishing the material. Artists won't find a way, and to say that you can take their stuff without paying and that they should just figure something out, is selfish and silly. You go to work and do some whatever thing (test a widget, flip a burger, dunno) - artists, authors especially - have to spend a good deal of time creating the art...during which they aren't paid. And as I said in another post, you're attacking artists while supporting the 0.1% that is turning you into a product. The 0.1% that got corporations to be considered people, are treating people like things. At least publishers treated us like an audience, versus a product. Be the change you want to see in the world? I dunno, something? If you think artists should find a new way, have you paid as much into gofundme and related stuff as artists would have made off their work (ie, their final cut)? There are theoretical things which could do facilitate this, but to support the upheaval our economic system starting with the artists and artisans first, means you've simply bought into the lie that the 0.1% have fed you since they're the only ones getting the money now.

Comment Re:Short-term benefit? (Score 1) 211

ok, and how - praytell - do you think the author of a book should be "paid for their performance" if not by someone buying the body of text they wrote? The body of text is not diminished by copying it multiple times, thus you're getting the same performance at copy 5,000 as someone who read copy 1. Are you for creating a global socialized artisan support network, where some sort of odd body out there decides how well of a "performance" an artist did, and then pays them a one-time payment, and then the planet can do what they will with the art?

Comment Re:Short-term benefit? (Score 1) 211

That sound you just heard going over your head...let me explain what it was. First, while some books are translated, last I heard the author's guild doesn't own amazon or adobe. Second, authors will sometimes translate things, but even when they do it's certainly not to every language. That job is generally done by someone of that other language group that wants to share it with others who read that language. The salient point was that the job of the author is simply to create the body of text - not to distribute it, translate it, or such. Division of labor is not all that new of a thing - I didn't make the soap I used this morning, did you?

Second, whether there's a chance someone will buy a book after they no longer need it is irrelevant; Google is making money off the book without giving money to the author, and you're reading the book without the book having been paid for (whether by you or a library).

Slashdot Top Deals

Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.

Working...