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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Texas Catch 22 Injustuce System (Score 2) 157

Yeah, and linking to think progress is the best example of a self-reinforcing echo chamber with a side of propaganda.

There is a video of the guy saying that Obama was going to lead the United Nations and invade Lubbock, Texas. You can ignore the "propaganda" and just listen to the judge in his own words if you are afraid of being infected by the dangerous thoughts of Think Progress..

I mean, I don't know if you've ever been to Lubbock, Texas, but don't nobody go there by choice.

Comment Re:O RLY? (Score 2) 62

I understand what copyright is intended to do, but I see little evidence that a 90+ year term and other onerous terms are means to this goal.

I'd be the first to agree that the current implementation of copyright is deeply flawed in several ways, including the steady creep up to the current absurd durations you mentioned. I am in no way supporting that side of the copyright system, as you can tell by many other posts I've made including to this very discussion.

However, most use of copyrighted work both by creators and by pirates still happens in the first few years, and in practice shortening the duration to something much more reasonable seems unlikely to affect the behaviour of either side very much. The basic principle is still that copyright establishes similar market incentives to create information-based products to the incentives established by respecting physical private property when it comes to creating physical products.

And of course, as Google points out, the search index could not have occurred under such a regime. I shouldn't have to sell you on the usefulness of internet search on society[...]

I'm something of a skeptic in that regard. My personal suspicion is that if we didn't have the likes of Google indexing everything, we'd just have evolved some other sort of directory/index system, along with including more explicit links in our Web content and probably making more use of bookmarks for starting points relevant to our personal interests. There were already plenty of moves in these directions in parallel with early search engine development, some much more promising than others, and the natural connectedness of the Web would lend itself just fine to scaling up these sorts of alternatives.

Maybe that would even have become a better system than what we have today. By its nature, an automated search engine will always be vulnerable to gaming whatever system it implements. Today's arrangement also locates an awful lot of power centrally with the big search engines, even though they are ultimately only useful because of any good content created by others that they help a visitor to find. When sites that would be of interest to visitors can rise and fall almost entirely by a change in the ranking algorithm at a search engine, over which the site has no control and for which the search engine has no accountability, I'm not sure everything is really working as wonderfully as we sometimes assume.

Automation has so far proven to be a questionable benefit over curation, and while it's certainly true that today's search engines are often better for finding interesting or useful information than the portals and web rings of the 1990s, that's not really a fair comparison. It's called web browsing for a reason, and I truly think we've lost something that had great potential there with the rise of the search engines.

Comment Not unheard of (Score 4, Interesting) 145

We already know that the liver will regenerate itself, and no special dietary restriction is necessary (though you do have to be kind to your liver).

If you cut a chunk off of someone's liver, it will grow back. We've learned this from Hepatitis C patients who have Stage 3 fibrosis or even cirrhosis. Cure the Hepatitis C (which is possible now with the new, expensive, drugs) and the liver will come back from the functionally near-dead. It was once believed to be a one-way process, but it turns out it's not.

Comment Re: Why stop at $50? (Score 1) 237

I have a special-needs child. A sitter that is qualified enough can be costly. It definitely tips the cost of the night over the proposed $50 home-based setup.

That changes everything. But I imagine you have better things to spend $50 on. The need to see something the minute it comes out is something I never understood, but then I spent a good deal of my younger life watching movies that were made before I was born.

I wish you well, friend.

Comment Re:BeauHD (Score 4, Informative) 116

And yet you are here.

That was supposed to be the punchline. I hate to be the guy who has to explain his own jokes, but every BeauHD article comment section seems to have one knucklehead who's complaining about SJWs or some such and the comment is always, "What does Grace Hopper have to do with tech? Slashdot has really gone downhill. That's why I don't come here any more."

Irony is hard enough to pull off in plain text, and I've been drinking since 10:30am, so I apologize.

Comment Re:You do not get to define innovation for anyone (Score 2) 62

When Google first launched their search engine, they didn't have ads in the way they and many other free-to-use online services do today. They were one of the pioneers of the modern online world where everything is expected to be "free", privacy is invaded routinely, advertising of questionable value to almost everyone other than the ad networks dominates, and web pages are so full of tracking and advertising junk that an entire ecosystem of tools had to be invented just to make the web not suck more than it did 20 years ago. Whatever benefits any of Google's services might have offered relative to the alternatives we had before, I'm still not sure it was worth the trade-off.

Comment Re:Why stop at $50? (Score 1) 237

I would gladly pay $50 for a dozen or so movies per year so I don't need to spend $50+ per night on a babysitter.

Jesus man, take your wife out once in a while, will you? She probably loves the fact that you can hire a babysitter and get a night out without the kids. At least that was my experience when my kid was young enough to need a babysitter.

Comment Re:Why stop at $50? (Score 3, Insightful) 237

You have to have 5 people watching the movie to get any value out of this service. Many theaters are less than that, around $8-9/ticket - now you have to bring over more than 6 people to get the value. I'm sure some people find comfort and possibly value in the possibility of sitting in their underwear while lounging and watching the latest movies

If you're lounging with 6 people in your underwear, you're probably not paying that much attention to the movie.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Turn on, tune up, rock out." -- Billy Gibbons

Working...