Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:It's not really social (Score 1) 171

I didn't bother to click the link, but i'll reply to what's there.


In other words, the author does not seem to have a clue how to make a persuasive argument, and instead wants to flog a personal agenda's dead horse. Providers who offer their services for free actually get something in return. This is well known, redundant at this point, and poorly argued.

It sure is easy to rebut an argument you haven't read.

By the way, I'm not sure the interviewee offered an argument at all. She simply pointed out reasons to be concerned about social networks. I didn't see anything that looked like an attempt to persuade others that they should leave Facebook.

But, never mind. You rebutted her argument brilliantly. Who needs to read the article?

Comment Re:Downloading or uploading? (Score 1) 197

Uploading, even a small amount, in order to be able to download at a reasonable rate does not sound anything like (the US notion of) fair use to me. The actual amount copied matters, but other factors matter as well. A small amount doesn't automatically give one a fair use exemption.

Of course, Finland may be different.

Comment Re:Downloading or uploading? (Score 1) 197

To augment your scenario a little: since you are allowed to share a certain portion of a copyrighted work up to a limit on the basis of Fair Use - laws you could likely argue that you must have shared content with a single entity over the limit for it to constitute copyright infringement.

I don't think fair use works like that. The portion of the original work copied is only one criterion for fair use. By itself, it is insufficient to prove that the copying falls under fair use.

I can't just make a copy of five minutes of an action movie and distribute it online and claim that, because the portion is small, I'm not infringing on the copyright. It just don't work like that!

Comment Re:The Weakest Link (Score 1) 255

Yeah that's end user price I was talking about dealer rates...When you buy a kilo u ain't payin to 120 per gram, not if you intend to make money that is. You're talking about something that doesn't have a real cost to manufacture so at dealer levels they basically define the price at however much they want to move to keep their rep up this week.
Oh and LMFAO at that article you linked, yeah a slideshow of some scenic places tells me a whole lot about how much people pay for cocaine. And those numbers look suspiciously like averages...I mean, noones payin for a gram of anything illegal by the dollar, they pay in intervals of 5 because some drug dealers will actually shoot you in the head if you try to give them 1's or change. In other words, this article is bullshit.

You so street.

Comment Re:Naive, because most investors (especially VCs). (Score 1) 438

Under some circumstances, not having an NDA can kill your ability to get a patent.


Do you mean that, if people take your idea and develop it prior to your filing of the patent, then prior art can kill the application? If so, that sounds about right, but you said something different. Namely, you said that "not having an NDA" can kill the patent.

Did you mean that? If so, how is an NDA relevant?

Comment Re:This seems terrifying (Score 1) 747

It's even worse than that.

Not only had he paid the fine, and not only did he show the officer a sealed letter from the state saying he had paid it, but having an unpaid fine is not an arrestable offense (in New Jersey, where this all happened)

Well, it seems to me that the fact he was innocent and shouldn't have been arrested is irrelevant here. The question is whether persons who are arrested may be strip-searched. The outcome may seem worse because this poor guy shouldn't have been arrested at all, but that fact isn't relevant to the argument before the court (we all know that sometimes, innocent people are arrested, so his innocence doesn't add anything to the argument).

I'm not saying that I agree (or disagree) with the judgment, but rather that his innocence is irrelevant to the question at hand.

Comment Re:Ultimate tech hipsters (Score 1) 361

Back in the mid-90s I loaded Linux (Yggdrasil or Slackware, IIRC) on a 40MHz 386. I got Xwindows running in 8MB of RAM, which is half what the guy in the article needed. It was pretty useless.

In 1996, I installed Slackware on a similar machine. Far from useless, it was liberating. Finally, I had a UNIX-like operating system on my home machine.

To each his own, I guess, but I made the switch from DOS/Win 3.1 to Linux and never looked back. (I had some experience with a then-girlfriend's Windows 95, but it didn't tempt me in the least.)

Comment Re:I don't think so. (Score 1) 1128

Look this has ceased to be a constructive argument. You did take it out of context, I never said they could not give it to who ever they wanted to.

By your logic, a person cannot do whatever they want to do with their own wealth. So I guess you don't believe in freedom then??!

No, this does not follow from my logic, since I never said I agreed that a person should be allowed to keep all and only that wealth which he has earned. That was your claim, not mine.

But it's apparent that this is going nowhere. I just wanted to point out that a natural consequence of what you said was something that you likely did not intend or agree with. Seems to me the correct response is to admit that you misspoke and try to fix your claim so that it more accurately reflects your opinions, but instead you just want to pretend that this unfortunate consequence really doesn't follow from your clearly stated principle.

As far as my own opinion, I'm fairly sympathetic to Nozick's ideas on what constitutes a just distribution of wealth (more or less that the history consists entirely of just transactions from previously just states --- if it was given to you by someone who had a right to hold it, then you have a right to hold it, with no nonsense about whether you earned it or not).

But there's no need to go into Nozick's views nor continue this discussion. Either you didn't get my point about why your statement was evidently incorrect or you refuse to admit error, but in either case, we've reached an impasse.

Comment Re:I don't think so. (Score 1) 1128

Yes I did say a person should be able to keep their wealth if they earned it, also since they own that wealth they can do whatever they want with it, and if that means giving it away they should be able to.

Please don't try twisting what I said, your taking it out of context, I was referring to Government or outside entity forcibly telling an individual to give up their earned wealth.

I'm not twisting anything. You wrote, "conservatives believe that a person who has earned their wealth should keep it, those who haven't earned it should not."

Perhaps you didn't mean to say that those who have not earned their wealth should not keep it, but that's what you said. As an immediate consequence, no one should keep any (unearned) gifts, including inheritances.

This really is a perfectly obvious consequence of what you wrote.

Comment Re:I don't think so. (Score 1) 1128

So, I suppose that conservatives would aim to abolish inheritance, because surely the heir doesn't (usually) do anything to earn wealth.

That depends on the person leaving the wealth, I may or may not leave my wealth to my son and daughter, the choice is mine in that fact.

Well, I generally agree, but you just said that a person should be able to keep wealth if and only if they've earned it. Now, we assume that you earned your wealth, but your heirs didn't earn the inheritance. This was a gift from you.

So, by your own terms, they should not be able to keep the inheritance because they didn't earn it.

(There may, of course, be certain cases in which one can be said to have "earned" an inheritance, but these are unusual and need not distract us here. If one should be able to keep only wealth which they have earned, then he should not be able to keep inheritances or other gifts, generally speaking. This strikes me as quite a silly principle.)

Comment Re:I don't think so. (Score 1) 1128

Meanwhile conservatives also believe there is finite wealth but feel those who do not "deserve" it should not have access to it. (ie there should never be enough wealth for everyone).

Not true at all, conservatives believe that a person who has earned their wealth should keep it, those who haven't earned it should not.

Oh. I didn't realize that conservatives think that only people who have "earned" their wealth should keep it. So, I suppose that conservatives would aim to abolish inheritance, because surely the heir doesn't (usually) do anything to earn wealth.

I have to say, though, that this entire thread is chock-full of arrogance on a grander scale than Zonk's. His fault was only minor oversight of the consequence of his claim, while we have folks claiming that voting for Bush is a greater sin than Zimmerman's apparent crime, or that anyone who understands conservatism would be a conservative.

Comment Re:see, here's the fatal flaw with this idea... (Score 4, Insightful) 370

I have no doubt that non-racists can dislike Obama, and I reckon the majority of Tea Party members are not racist.

Now, how about some evidence for your claims that:

(1) Some or many of the racist signs at Tea Party events were the product of liberals trying to discredit the movement and
(2) The media has removed black people from images of Tea Party rallies.

Just 'cause, you know, anyone can say anything.

Slashdot Top Deals

Evolution is a million line computer program falling into place by accident.