Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Submission Summary: 0 pending, 10 declined, 3 accepted (13 total, 23.08% accepted)

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! ×

Submission + - Newspaper guilty of copyright entrapment? (

mijkal writes: From the article: "A website operator is accusing the Las Vegas Review-Journal of entrapment for inviting readers to share its stories online — and then participating in lawsuits against readers who post that material online. ... (He) said the portion of the six-paragraph column that was displayed on his website — four paragraphs with credit to and a link to the R-J — was provided automatically through a syndication arrangement through Real Simple Syndication (RSS). ... As in most of the Righthaven lawsuits, the lawsuit demanded $75,000 in damages and forfeiture of Burrage's website domain name,"

Submission + - Reasons not to buy an iPhone 4 ... unreasonable?

mijkal writes: CNet has taken a page from Fox News in this bit (also being broadcast as a condensed commercial on streaming radio) featuring Editor at Large Brian Cooley's 'Top 5 reasons not to buy an iPhone 4' (Flash required; boo). His argument that Verizon will get the iPhone within in months and everyone will rejoice seems incredulous (Verizon was allegedly made the initial offer and rejected, and they are notorious for locking down features for no good reason. Who wants a network on which you can't do data and calls simultaneously?), but then he points to Sprint's '4G' network and claims that it's better than '3G'. Being a tech editor, I'd hope he knows that marketing numbers real-world metrics. And he points to AT&T's end of unlimited data plans, which probably won't be on Verizon much longer either. Disclaimer: I'm all for carrier choice, but these arguments just don't seem grounded in facts and logic, and that's what annoys me here.

Submission + - Royal Society Calls for Creationism in Science ( 1

mijkal writes: "The director of education at Brittain's Royal Society is calling for so-called creationism to be taught in UK science classes. From the article: 'Rather than dismissing creationism as a "misconception" ... it should be seen as a cultural "world view". Teachers should take the time to explain why creationism had no scientific basis. ... [The director] stressed that the topic should not be taught as science.' The article goes on to say that the director — who is a biologist and a Church of England minister — believes it is more effective to engage with pupils' ideas about creationism, rather than to obstruct discussion with the 1 in 10 students who do not accept the scientific version of the evolution of species."
Wireless Networking

Submission + - Tips on setting up IP camera surveillance?

mijkal writes: A friend owns two apartment complexes, one of which is is another city and one of which she lives on the premises, and has had some recent problems of thefts and vandalism in the common areas. Does anyone have any tips on what to look for when selecting IP cameras, particularly for low-lux areas (one is outdoor)? Anyone had experience setting up a similar system, and if so, what things could I avoid? The cameras ideally should have have wifi capability at some point (can be wired and use a cheap wifi router w/DD-WRT to achieve wireless capability) to be on her LAN (Internet for remote site) so she can access the feeds on her computer. She'd like to keep the budget as low as possible, but she's willing to pay what it costs to meet her needs to do the job (ie catch thieves/vandals, remotely monitor other complex). Cheers.

Submission + - YouTube permanently bans Gisburne, changes story

mijkal writes: "YouTube has told atheist member Nick Gisburne that he is now permanently banned from the site. This stems from his posting of a video slideshow of quotes from the Quran. Originally YouTube said it was because of 'inappropriate content', but now it has changed its story and is claiming copyright infringement because it has a soundtrack (nevermind that hundreds of lip-synch videos as well as official music videos readily available on YouTube). Had Nick known this was the reason to begin with (YouTube admits it made a mistake), he wouldn't have reposted the video (or encouraged others to do the same). YouTube has decide to evoke the DMCA and its '3 strikes' policy, and is trying to reassure us all that the content has nothing to do with the banning of a certain unnamed account, but rather because of recurring copyright infringement. YouTube is also covering its tracks by changing the reason the videos were removed. All of his videos from all of his accounts have been removed, and anyone who's spent some time on YouTube and seen Nick's videos should clearly see this policy is not routinely executed, so why is Gisburne being unfairly targeted here? Given the context, it seems Gisburne is being treated rather harshly by the YouTube censors. (And just to nip this in the bud, yes, YouTube has the right to censor; and we all have the right to call YouTube on it when we feel its unfair and YouTube can change its policy or we can move on; no one's equating this with government censorship.)"

Slashdot Top Deals

"The eleventh commandment was `Thou Shalt Compute' or `Thou Shalt Not Compute' -- I forget which." -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982