Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Digital Rights? (Score 1) 240

The rights of buyers

You're assuming someone buys something. They don't. They license rights to display content. That has been upheld in various courts around the world already.

Consumers have no rights enshrined in law what so ever when discussing media.

Comment Re:Digital Rights? (Score 1) 240

The Internet isn't what it used to be. It has been taken over and changed. Maybe should be called the commercialnet, or spynet or something of the sort.

The irony of your comment is that the Web has become dominated by ads and privacy intrusions in large part because people using it weren't willing to pay for stuff but still wanted the stuff. It turns out that people who make good stuff still have rent to pay, and that equivalent content and services don't always magically appear from within the community if no-one pays for them.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with a discussion about copyright, infringement, and alternative business models that become practical with DRM, though. Nope, no parallels there at all.

The thing is, when I was first on the net, everything was free because people created things that they wanted to share. Then others came to this place where people shared their creations, and said "Nice place you have here, but I don't want to share my stuff for free, so I need you to change it for me so it will suit my needs. Your software will need changes. Your hardware will need changes. You will lose rights. You will lose privacy. You will lose security, and we'll probably sue anyone who points out that we put you at risk. It is okay though, it is just the price you have to pay to accommodate us."

If it was your house, you'd slam the door in their face.

Comment Re:Digital Rights? (Score 1) 240

Content makers have no right to take over my computer.

No they don't, but they will. Even the hardware has been going that way. I hate the thought of the wasted silicon. It Is like buying a truck and finding out that big content that you aren't even going to use will take up one seat and 200 horsepower, and some space in the back too.

PS I tried to look up horsepower for trucks, and chose two that sounded like they could tell me, but they both just wanted to sell me trucks. Wanted my zip code. I don't have one.

Comment Re:Digital Rights? (Score 5, Insightful) 240

Don't be such a drama queen, the freedoms you speak of don't come from violating copyrights nor is EME a tool for censorship.

Don't be so naive. A car isn't a getaway tool, a gun isn't a murder tool. If it can be used or abused, it will be. This won't be the end, merely the beginning. It will creep and grow.

The Internet isn't what it used to be. It has been taken over and changed. Maybe should be called the commercialnet, or spynet or something of the sort. Do a search for stuff these days and more often than not I get sites trying to sell me stuff. Just yesterday I was searching for a how to on taking my laptop apart to clean the fans, and most links were for buying fans. I found what I needed, but it was way down the list.

The net wasn't created for online sales, yet it must be rebuilt at everyone's expense, so a few rich may ensure profit.

It was good while it lasted.

Comment Software patents (Score 1) 338

search through a massive database of code snippets

Does it also search through a database of software patents to make sure that it doesn't infringe?

A better use of the AI in today's world would be to review all existing software patents, then generate as many non-patented concepts as possible and file for software patents on them.

Comment Re:White Leftists Whine, China Creates Superhumans (Score 1) 159

My concern with giving advantages is exasperating the resource divide between the rich and poor by adding a capability divide, such that the rich get enhancements that help them get more rich whilst the poor pool up dysfunction and mediocracy.

I suspect at first it will only be available to the rich, but later it will become mandatory for the poor. They will be edited to be more docile, compliant, submissive, obedient.

Comment Re:Not for Ethicists to decide (Score 1) 159

Maybe, the changes are "dangerous" from the point of view of Biology and population health. But dragging Ethics into it is utter nonsense.

Ethics does come into play, particularly since we are beginners at this technology. Is it ethical to go ahead and create a human being designed to be smarter and stronger, and it ends up with unintended consequences because we are amateurs? Maybe the child lives in constant pain? Has missing limbs? Three eyes? And all we can say is "Whoops! You were just supposed to be smart."

I'm pretty excited by the technology, and don't wish to stop it (I'm sure we couldn't if we wanted). I think we need to be careful, and we need to remember that our mistakes could lead to a great deal of suffering to the innocent humans we create.

Will it be available to everyone? Or just the 0.1%? Or the military supersoldiers? Or some other country creating a "master-race"? There is a lot that could go wrong, not only with the technology itself, but also with how we use it.Certainly lots to consider. Ethics is only one small part of it.

Comment Re:Against TOS (Score 1) 652

this wouldn't be a search; it would be a compulsion to divulge information, which would then be used to assist in searching for something which isn't at the border.

Agreed. Also if one were to extend their logic, if you have a phone at the border, it is capable of connecting to any other phone in the USA, and potentially many other countries. So would this then give border agents the ability to call anyone and interrogate them? Or have someone go seize their phone and search it simply because your phone can connect to it? Makes about as much sense as what they are doing now.

Comment Re:Western Digital Still in Business? (Score 1) 78

I know it is only anecdotal, but I have mostly WD drives (all mechanical), as I have had the best experience with them, and had bad luck with Seagate in particular.

I have a 320GB and a 500GB(ish?) external WD. Both have been hauled around in a laptop bag on airplanes and helicopters for years. Still work great. Have much newer 1.5TG and 2TB WD externals which have done the same, but not as long. I have (desktop external) 320GB, 750GB, 2TB and 4TB WD models (you can kind of guess the ages by the sizes) all still working away.

I had picked up a Seagate external (1 TB or 1.5TB I think) and it died in less than a year.

Wife's laptop internal (Seagate) drive just failed in less than a year (warranty still good, yay!).
My laptop internal failed recently as well (Toshiba), about 2 months past the 3 year warranty.

At work we had a desktop external Seagate drive also last less than a year.

So I am a small sample size, but anecdotally, my experience is:
- Eight WD drives working fine
- Experience with 3 seagate drives lasting less than a year (2 owned, 1 at work)
- One Toshiba drive lasting 3 years

Comment Re:Encryption... the only solution (Score 1) 91

The only good and somewhat permanent solution to this would be for Google, Microsoft, etc to encrypt the e-mails end-to-end and in storage as well, so that nobody, not even them, can see what they contain. Unfortunately, doing so would remove their ability to data mine and monetize the contents of the e-mails and so they will never do this. Hence the ultimate answer will come from another direction, someone who takes over their roles as major e-mail providers but is not interested in mining the contents of the e-mails. This likely will have to be some form of non-profit entity or at least a non-free e-mail service.

It is not the only solution. Likely the best solution, but since they won't do it, it is not really a solution at all in this case.

So another possibility is, sort of like frequency hopping spread spectrum, don't put the email all in one place. Break it up into fragments and spread it all over. There are data centers all over. Spread the contents between them, all in different countries, scrambled, so that you can't read them unless you have them all. If any one country forbids the transfer of the portion in their country, then it is a no-go. Put as much as possible in countries with strong privacy laws.

Slashdot Top Deals

Contemptuous lights flashed flashed across the computer's console. -- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy