Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the brand new SourceForge HTML5 speed test! Test your internet connection now. Works on all devices. ×

Comment Re:The ego... (Score 1) 428

Some people on YouTube make money, but the way that the Fair Use Copyright law is used, coupled to how media companies contract and pay artists, means that the media companies are clearly benefiting from how YouTube exposes media/music/videos.

I don't believe any of them are really fair to artists, save the few Indie artists that do their own promotion via YouTube, and it takes lots of worth, not to mention decent music/videos.

Commercial content does very well on YouTube, especially the free stuff. So does user-to-user content, like how to rebuild a Honda brake caliper, or do basic knitting.

That Apple isn't inventive enough to capture the fancy of people willing to use YouTube as a content dissemination medium is just sour grapes. Apple might be inventive, but unless they can somehow advance or protect their inventiveness, they will be ceaselessly snacked on.

Comment Re: Omar Saddiqui Mateen? (Score 2) 1715

There are those that want to draw lines, so as to refine their concept of definition.

Turns out, you can be a Buddhist Catholic/Christian, as Buddhism is a philosophy. Buddhism is mostly cast as monotheistic. But you can check Buddhism on a census form, and on other legal docs that describe a tick box as "your religion".

There are polytheistic religions, too, the largest following as Hinduism.

Following the tenets of Confucius, or Lao Tze, can also be described as religion or philosophy or both.

The commonality is that a philosophy can be religious. Atheism is a philosophy, and for some, a religion expressed as humanism, or secular humanism.

Each philosophy/religious branch has their radical orthodoxy, non-benign branches, although some would shun these branches, calling them heretics, apostates, and worse. Such a state may also mean that those believing the heresy to be worthy of death, as now is the strangeness between Sunni, Shiite, and other branches of Islam.

This occurred before in Christianity, many times. The Cathars, Bogomils, Protestants, Catholics, and others have often sent armies to kill, or terrorists (Guy Fawkes is a notable) to do their dirty work.

None of this is particularly new.

All this said, atheism just rejects god/God/Gods in toto as a philosophy. Organized or not, atheists can be self-described if they choose, as practicing atheism as a religion.

Submission + - Walks like a Black Duck: Docker's security teaseware tool unmasked (networkworld.com)

Miche67 writes: Docker's new security tool for containers is a step in the right direction, but it's not Docker's. It's Black Duck's.

The short of it is this: there are two SaaS front ends pointing to the same tool—Black Duck’s Hub product, which vets, among other things, Docker containers.

Underneath the teaseware is a tool that checks exactly what is in the container being tested. Black Duck checks your container or those from Docker or Red Hat’s repository. The Docker tool checks just Docker containers.

By providing a view into the containers, Black Duck and Docker allow you to see vulnerabilities that could cause security problems.

Tom Henderson writes:

This is a stealth marketing campaign by Black Duck Software for their Hub SaaS tool subscription. This is also a way for Docker to fend of serious criticism of their biggest (in my opinion) flaw: container software manifest security chain of authorities.

Comment Re: Sounds like a good time to get in on the game (Score 1) 157

Underwriting and sponsorship are the briefest of ads. It's because people won't open their wallets, and electricity, facility, and meager salaries add up to money.

The FCC also has to ensure that there is staff to review and enforce licensing, the engineering that goes behind it, and the ongoing management of spectrum, as well as common carrier infrastructure, telephony, etc. None of this stuff comes free.

It's not ClearChannel that's made licensing expensive; an act of Congress allowed networks to own more than their fair share, and then this created a money-making opportunity to conglomerate and share resources, while dumbing down content to suit some MBA's target. The good turf was bought up and subsumed into a pit of trash radio.

Who to blame: Congress, for allowing the conglomeration and monopolizing of the airwaves by too few organizations. They allow this with telcos, wireless carriers, and many other industry segments.

The license expense, however, is real. It does take money to run the FCC. Without it, there'd be chaos. This isn't to defend the FCC, rather, to explain that licensing isn't a trivial, go to the license branch sort of activity. I can bounce a beam off the moon from my back yard as a ham radio operator. But I can't do this: run a pirate station-- without consequences. Spectrum management is non-trivial. There are many competing factions wanting spectrum. On a cable, or via the Internet, there is much "spectrum".

Comment Re: Sounds like a good time to get in on the game (Score 1) 157

It's more complicated than lobbying. In the late '40s and early '50s, FM was just born. The FCC gave a few stations incredible turf-- unknowingly setting them up for high future asset value.

Tall antennas and a lot of power gave them reach. Reach gave them advertising power. Spectrum was set aside for public use, educational use at first, then non-commercial use. Political agenda aside, community radio can be marvelous. So are LPFM stations. The lifeless crap we listen to is driving ClearChannel, Emmis, and others, right into the ground. People cutting cable have also killed local TV stations, and with good reason. We have alternatives.

I cut my cable long ago. There are a few local decent public media stations in my area, and I listen to them, and they're relevant, if not with their own constant underfunding problems. They play great mixes, have local news, and are focused on their community, because they don't take ads.

Every single licensed stations has a community advisory board, and you can send your complaints-- even about programming-- to the FCC, where indeed they're required to read them, and make stations address them.

I believe that the motives of most pirate stations is ego, with a dash of community focus added as ostensible motivation.

Comment Re: Sounds like a good time to get in on the game (Score 1) 157

You need community radio. Such stations really do respond to local tastes and needs. IMHO, NPR is corporate media, although not as awful as ClearChannel, Emmis, etc.

Starting a community station takes vision, but they do well because as you cite, they fit the local needs, not the automated crap today. Get one of these, rather than the pirate version. Eventually, it's more sustainable for the community.

Comment Re: Sounds like a good time to get in on the game (Score 1) 157

It's true that many stations have enormous strength and tall antennas, a historical domination process. But there are many low-power stations, struggling to be heard, especially in the high school, college, community, public media, and specialty areas.

Your assessment of what pirates covers only ones that think about what they're doing. Many do not. You can make an FM station from an Arduino, put a cheap 100w amp on it, a crappy antenna, and interfere with licensed stations for quite a radius.

I disagree with your assessment highly, and as an engineer, find the loose-and-fast mentality to be like I said: not civil. Licensed stations pay a lot of $$ for engineering studies subsequently submitted to the FCC to ensure lack of interference. Not a pirate alive does the same thing. It's all about them and their perceived entitlement.

Slashdot Top Deals

Even bytes get lonely for a little bit.