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


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

Comment Re:Interesting, but probably irrelevant (Score 1) 88

If downloading copyrighted material is infringement, then

This antecedent is the matter in question here. Of course it's common sense that the consequent follows from it, but asserting this antecedent is the new thing here. Previously it was held (rightly) that being the recipient of someone else's illegal distribution of an illegal copy was not illegal copying and distribution on your part, but on theirs.

Comment Re:Interesting, but probably irrelevant (Score 1) 88

To continue the analogy, it's like a library places a book on a public shelf. You are the one choosing to take it off that shelf, walk over to the copy machine, push the button, and then take the photocopy home with you.

That's not analogous. A closer analogy would be if I could walk into the library, browse the book titles on the shelf without being able to touch them, and then ask the librarian to photocopy one of them for me to take home. When you download something from a remote server, you're sending it a request to transmit a copy to you. It's up to the other party (and how they've configured their server) whether to comply with that request or not. You're not even in possession of any media to copy until they've already copied it and distributed it to you.

Comment Re:Interesting, but probably irrelevant (Score 1) 88

It's not about possession, it's about who's in control of the "make a copy" process.

So if I first ask my girlfriend to make me a mix CD, then I become party to her copyright infringement, but if she just does it of her own accord I'm fine?

If asking for a mix CD still leaves me innocent, what if instead I email her asking her to email me a ripped copy back?

What if she has a script in her email that will read properly-phrased incoming emails and email ripped MP3s back?

I ask because I'm not in control of the "make a copy" process when downloading either. I'm asking someone else in possession of the media to send me a copy of it. They're doing the copying and distributing of it. Does it make a legal difference that I asked them to? Does it make a legal difference if the asking is via electronic communication instead of verbal, or if their response is automated instead of manual?

Comment Re:Interesting, but probably irrelevant (Score 1) 88

Is the recipient of a mix CD a copyright infringer? If not, it doesn't make any sense that a downloader would be either.

The one who started out in possession of the media, made and distributed a copy of it, is violating the right to control copying and distribution, i.e. copyright.

Someone who started out with nothing, copied nothing, distributed nothing, but ends up in possession of something that someone else illegally copied and distributed, has done what exactly that violates what law?

Comment Re:Am I missing something? (Score 1) 140

Nope.. pretty big in general. My children's school here in Norway is now at over 90% iPhone. The remaining 10% are kids who have parents who say things in nasal voices like "It's not important what kind of phone you use. I want you to learn you don't have to let peer pressure force you to make us by an iPhone. We're doing this to help you build character". As such, we give our older iPhones to kids who have parents like that.

I find that if mom or dad us Android and they prefer to buy themselves a new phone and hand down their old one instead of buying their kids their own phone, that's pretty common. On the other hand, if parents say "I'll buy you a phone", the kids will choose what their friends have. Many kids save up birthday and christmas money for iPhones as well. It's pretty reasonable for a 14 year old to be able to save $1000 US in a year.

I've seen similar iPhone madness in quite a few countries. Tokyo was iPhone crazy this summer.

It's pretty likely that what you see and what is real is based on where you spend your time. iMessage and iPhone is a major peer pressure thing among children. It'll change as they get older and have to pay for their own phones.

Comment Re:It's the only reason (Score 1) 140

Do you use the iMessage features? Do you use the emojis? Do you do the meme thing? Do you insert sounds and music? Do you and your friends and coworkers sit in a circle learning new iPhone tricks that look really cool? Do you do the group thing?

Or do you send an occasional text and maybe when you're playing it dangerous, a picture?

Are you assessing how children and teenagers use a technology based on how a adult uses it?

I'm not about to say "iPhone is the only way and they can't change". But, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I have to say. I'm a 41 year old man with thinning hair. I have to remember to trim my nose hair and ear hair which I often forget to do. What matters is what the cool people say... and let's be honest, you're here commenting on Slashdot... you're definitely excluded from that category. If the cool people use iPhone, then the kids use iPhone. The question is... which cool people do your kids want to copy?

Comment Re:It's the only reason (Score 1) 140

It's the group messaging features.

Also, iMessage looks really really wimpy and basic (or it did before they ruined it in IOS 10 by adding too much bling) but it really is very full featured. If you're used to using both iMessage and Hangouts, they're basically the same tool, but Hangouts looks and feels like something a guy in a crop top and parachute pants carrying a boom box from the 80's would use where iMessage has a little bit less of the brain shattering clash of design paradigms, clutters and color. It's much easier on iMessage to make sure the receiver sees what you want them to see compared to Hangouts which seems to just make that far too difficult.

It's really funny. iMessage actually... while looking a bit kindof "been done" these days is far more likely to attract a persons eyes than Hangouts... except on the Google iPhone clone at least. The color scheme is better, the shapes are smoother, the background is just the right shade of eggshell or something. Hangouts looks like some crack smoking WhatsApp user designed it.

iMessage doesn't "transparently" switch to SMS that well. It also REALLY doesn't do images, emojis, etc... all that well over SMS/MMS.

Comment Re:It's the only reason (Score 0) 140

As an IT person for 30+ years, you should know better than to suggest that locking into Google as opposed to Apple isn't really a freedom. Of course you might be suggesting that you can buy phones from different vendors if you buy Android. I suppose that's true. As all the phones on the planet are basically the same design with minor variations right now, I just don't see the point. Cheap Android phones are damn near unusable and Android is completely unusable without a 5.5" or larger screen anymore and that's just WAY TOO BIG at least for me.

As far as I can tell on Android, you have as much choice as you want as long as you're willing to pay $600+ for your phone and you very carefully choose a screen between 5.5 and 5.7 inches and you make sure you get just the right.... just by the Google iPhone instead.

BTW, I do have a Samsung something or another for when I'm travelling. It's the T-Mobile version which is basically just short of a pre-installed virus. Thankfully, after 6 software update cycles, the base apps like Play, Phone, etc... almost don't crash anymore. I'm pretty sure T-Mobile is trying to convince you to come back and buy iPhones instead.

So back to the point. You have just as much lack of freedom on Google as you have on iPhone. The question is whether you are either willing to lie to yourself that the reason you don't use iPhone is because of a false sense of freedom or because you simply want freedom from Apple. I don't mind either way.

I actually probably am the opposite of you. I intentionally "spread the love". I use an iPhone with a Microsoft Office365 hosted e-mail account and make a real effort to properly exit Google apps when I'm not using them. I really don't care if Google tracks me everywhere, but I have personal anxiety at this time that one day, the Google board will replace the leadership of the company with someone focused on profits without a regard for morals... see HP, IBM, etc... At this time Google has more control over earth than nearly anyone else. They control more of the media stream than anyone else. They know where I am, what I look at, what I buy. They have my credit card numbers, my bank account numbers, my passwords, etc... they know what I'm looking at when I hold Mr. Happy in the palm of my hand.

One day when Google is either broken up by the government, is restructured, is simply taken over, etc... it would take one bad (malicious or accidental) decision from Google to literally destroy the entire world's economy or at least the lives of millions.

That said... using iPhone as it's the only alternative to Android gives me the sense that at least one tiny corner of my life isn't completely owned by a ticking time bomb.

Comment Re:So says every SJW attacking Peter Thiel (Score 1) 419

Are you willfully ignoring the context surrounding the Koch Brothers? Most people don't fault them for donating to candidates that support their position. That in and of itself is how politics works. It sucks that they can do so at such an extreme level compared to everyone else when it's supposed to be one vote for every person, but that's beside the point.

The problem is that the Kochs profit massively off of fossil fuels and have been funding any candidates that will deny climate change and thwart any meaningful discussion, investigation or mitigation of it. They are willing to compromise our species' long-term survival on this planet for their own short-term gain.

Comment Re:Damn... (Score 4, Insightful) 23

Uh, they didn't screw up with IT and accidentally expose an unsecured file server. They purposely ripped and served up DVD screeners in direct violation of their agreements. Not some automatic shrink-wrap agreement or TOS but and actual specific, legal contract signed by both parties. I have no problem with companies enforcing their contractual agreements with each other.

Of course, I didn't RTFS. Were the culprits just some innovative—er, I mean opportunistic—employees, or was there a larger internal conspiracy?

Comment Another Explosive Revelation! (Score 1) 419

The story says that Mark Zuckerberg was looking to "get in on the action a bit, and perhaps curry favor with Podesta and the Clinton camp in shaping public policy." Let's check the email they quoted.

Mark is meeting with people to learn more about next steps for his philanthropy and social action and it’s hard to imagine someone better placed or more experienced than you to help him

He’s begun to think about whether/how he might want to shape advocacy efforts to support his philanthropic priorities and is particularly interested in meeting people who could help him understand how to move the needle on the specific public policy issues he cares most about. He wants to meet folks who can inform his understanding about effective political operations to advance public policy goals on social oriented objectives (like immigration, education or basic scientific research).

Mark wants help learning how to make his philanthropic efforts more effective? What a monster! How long will we allow these billionaires to spend their fortunes trying to improve education and support scientific research? It sounds like he wants to become a more useful citizen by reaching out to people in his professional and social network—and we can't have any of that!

Comment Re:11 minute of action per game (Score 1) 235

I saw a baseball game in Tokyo recently and was surprised to find they seemed to keep up the pace a lot more. Even with all the crazy synchronized cheers, the pitchers kept pitching. The overall quality of the play didn't seem to be as high, though. Fair amount of unintentional walks and the foul balls were pretty wild.

Slashdot Top Deals

Algol-60 surely must be regarded as the most important programming language yet developed. -- T. Cheatham