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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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 Privately run? (Score 4, Insightful) 38

If CSIR-Tech was privately run, it would have been shut down long ago.

HA HA! Good one. If CSIR-Tech were privately run, as soon as quarterly earnings showed a decline they would start suing anyone and everyone remotely connected to their patents. As soon as this was shown to more profitable than whatever those scientists had been doing they'd announce a "restructuring" and fire most of them, replacing them with patent lawyers.

Heh heh, "shut down" ... man, ha. ::wipes away tear::

Comment Re:Nintendo is done (Score 1) 89

Well... mostly that was just complaining about system performance, along with the lack of a second screen. That's hardware. You also said, "I had hints of that thought with the Wii," for an unexplained reason, even though you also said that it was interesting and novel. So I don't know why you almost didn't like the Wii, but there isn't that much setting consoles apart from one another. Unless you were unhappy about clicking on the little buttons in the Wii menu, it's probably hardware related.

Comment Re:Nintendo is done (Score 1) 89

Why are they done if they don't release for third parties? The Switch seems to be doing fine, their handhelds have always been big money makers, two generations ago they had the top-selling console and that wound up being one of the best selling consoles ever. Not three years ago they had something like $10 billion in cash reserves, and lackluster Wii U sales haven't cost them anywhere close to that much.

I don't mean to pick on you here, but I see a lot of baseless doom and gloom when it comes to Nintendo and... where the hell does that come from? Why would you, or anyone, think this? Where did you get the idea that they're on the verge of needing to pull a Sega?

Comment Re:Exactly what the First amendment is meant to st (Score 1) 155

Well, first of all, that language is too definitive. I was being more careful in my previous posts, but arguments always seem to lead to more extreme positions than originally intended. I should have said something like, "I'm trying to suggest that not being current could do that." - I was trying to point out that what speech is, and what free speech protects, is more complicated than the parent poster was suggesting, not that I knew exactly what those things were. No one knows exactly what those things are.

For the rest: Maybe i should ask what it is which you think makes those Roman diatribes speech in the present day? Speech isn't a solo affair, after all, it needs an audience and everyone at whom those diatribes were directed is gone. Someone now can read these things, and possibly be interested, but they are not the subject of the communication, they are an outside observer.

The other aspect is: even if this is speech, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that it's constitutionally protected. You brush aside the exceptions to free speech, but they certainly aren't "very specific" (pornography is whatever Justice Stewart says it is?) and non-political speech has been inconsistently protected by the courts. Under an originalist interpretation of the constitution I don't think it would be crazy to suggest that it isn't protected by the constitution at all. Though I haven't read the Federalist Papers, maybe there's someone in there expounding on the virtues of free expression.

None of this says that free expression isn't protected, just that perhaps it isn't protected by the constitution.

Comment Re:Exactly what the First amendment is meant to st (Score 1) 155

I'm not trying to suggest that being recorded is what makes the label of "speech" questionable, I'm trying to suggest that not being current is what does that. Particularly when it comes to free speech - the point of free speech is to allow for political dissent, and while those Roman diatribes were political speech at the time, they're now reference material.

Maybe I can clarify what I'm trying to get at here. Let's say that you're talking in a forum and someone says something that you don't like. You start to write your own diatribe in response but at some point you realize that everything you're trying to say has already been said by Marcus Aurelius. So, feeling good about yourself for being so smart, you delete what you wrote and instead just quote him. You contribute none of your own words to your forum post, it is just a quote. Who is speaking, in this situation?

What I'm saying is that in this situation you are the one who is speaking, the only one who is speaking, even though none of the words are yours. Speech, at least in the context of free speech, is about communication in the present day, and if by quoting someone else you are communicating your thoughts then you are speaking and the person who you are quoting is (probably) not. (Exception if you're just regurgitating what someone else said, without believing or understanding it. Then they are communicating through you.)

So this is what I mean by the difference between speech and history, even though you could probably come up with a better name for old speech than just "history." It's important to keep in mind what we're protecting and why when we talk about free speech though, it's specifically political speech. It's not free expression. We have laws against obscenity and some forms of hate speech and rules against swearing on air and so on.

Comment Re:Exactly what the First amendment is meant to st (Score 1) 155

Not when the "something" is obviously unconstitutional.

Right... "obviously." Bleh, I knew when I said that that it would be controversial. Controversy isn't a problem, I don't mind discussing things, but invariably someone doesn't read all of the replies, or two people post at the same time or something, and I do mind repeating myself.

All right, if by "obviously unconstitutional" you're talking about free speech, then you can read the thread started by the insulting guy. He seemed to think this was about free speech too. I don't think that's so obvious. If you're talking about some other constitutional clause, then by all means share.

For your bit about "something needs to be done" you can read what the AC said and what I said in reply, but the gist is that when you're starting from nothing it is hard to go down. Possible maybe, but difficult. What we have right now when it comes to privacy is, almost literally, nothing. So almost any gesture in that direction would be welcomed by me, and this particular law is not as cataclysmic as you all are seeming to suggest. (Though, granted, it all comes down to how it's enforced.)

Comment Re:Exactly what the First amendment is meant to st (Score 1, Interesting) 155

The thing about arguing via easily parroted slogan is that you tend to miss out on subtleties like what it is, exactly, that you're arguing about. I can tell from your previous post that you think this is a discussion about free speech, and I assume that's your "defining characteristic of the United States" which you think you're defending.

I don't mean to dismiss that entirely, freedom of speech probably factors into this somewhere, but speech is a notoriously difficult thing to nail down and its freedom has never been absolute. Not even here in the US. I could make a comparison between what the summary is describing and libel, but let me point something else out instead: "after a significant lapse in time from its first publication" is stipulated as a requirement for this law. Does this sound like suppressing speech, or does it sound like burying history?

Or do you not distinguish between those things? "Free speech" is the term that's used, but speech is transient, ephemeral. It is of the moment. Once the issue has passed and "no longer material to current public debate or discourse" then it's not so crazy to think that what was said at that time is no longer speech, but rather history.

History, of course, has its own value, but that's a separate discussion.

Comment Re:Exactly what the First amendment is meant to st (Score 1) 155

On the one hand, this is a reasonable point. On the other... the PATRIOT Act wasn't created in a vacuum. It took functioning intelligence and law enforcement services and upended them all because of a single failure. If we had no law enforcement whatsoever, and then some disaster struck, is the right response to that, "No, we should just keep on having no law enforcement at all unless we can be totally certain that it's perfect."?

There are perhaps some dystopian scenarios where anarchy is the preferable state, but this doesn't seem to be one of those.

Comment Re:Exactly what the First amendment is meant to st (Score 0) 155

Oh for fuck's sake. I wrote a whole reply here and then misclicked on the cancel button. I'm not going to write that again.

The short: your tautology is a gross oversimplification. Bad legislation may be bad legislation, but it can none the less produce positive effects.

Slashdot Top Deals

Time to take stock. Go home with some office supplies.

Working...