Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Easy reason (Score 1) 533

by scorilo (#36999216) Attached to: Wikipedia Losing Contributors, Says Wales

There is no single and absolute "TRUTH", just competing versions and theories thereof. To think that you can hold someone "accountable" for their opinions is silly. It is similar to Italians who sentenced and jailed seismologists for not being able to predict the recent earthquake near Rome, or Romanians who almost convicted meteorologists for "lying about the weather". Forcing people to use their real names will cause more people to abandon wikipedia.

If you one wants to use his or her real name, nothing stops them.

Comment Re:Easy reason (Score 1) 533

by scorilo (#36999124) Attached to: Wikipedia Losing Contributors, Says Wales

Using real names is a bad idea. The whole point of wikipedia is that the collective wisdom of the many produces better results than the individual wisdom of few (as is the case with other encyclops. It is the best known bastion (and possibly the only one) in the fight against ipse-dixit-ism, a disease deeply embedded in human DNA. Requiring real names would not prevent editors from being dicks, but rather would make corruption easier and restrict dickishness solely to those who can produce credentials or create the illusion that they have them.

Also, why so many people think here that real names are the answer, while in comments on articles about Google Plus debacle they correctly identify that policy as flawed?!?

Comment "NOTHING could convince me that Evolution's wrong" (Score 1) 1486

by scorilo (#35754490) Attached to: Is Science Just a Matter of Faith?

This is a quote from PZ Myers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U0MnBmSlhE
"The kind of naive falsifyability that you hear from the philosophers of the Popper school .. is bogus. (..) This doesn't mean I'm close-minded."
Religious people think the same way about Creationism. How can a debate be possible, if neither side allows for the possibility that they could be wrong?

Personally, I don't find the creationist argument persuasive so very early in my youth I chose to go down science path. Though back then I used to think it was a "reason" based decision, it is now clear to me that it was essentially driven by what I liked more.

Comment PR work? (Score 1) 195

by scorilo (#35233210) Attached to: How Do Seeders Profit From BitTorrent?

If I was running **AA, I'd hire a PR firm to create the appearance that downloading takes place for profit. Planting such text files, though silly, might achieve just that. Even though it's easier to shut such sites down (but expensive), I stand to profit more from creating the appearance that "pirates" are not so innocent and allowing the sites to continue.
Canadian RIAA has been claiming that Canadian laws are inadequate while dragging its feet before suing IsoHunt: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5636/135/
United States

Patriot Act Up For Renewal, Nobody Notices 463

Posted by Soulskill from the wonder-how-long-we'll-put-up-with-it dept.
Ponca City, We Love You writes "When the Patriot Act was first signed in 2001, it was billed as a temporary measure required because of the extreme circumstances created by the terrorist threat. The fear from its opponents was that executive power, once given, is seldom relinquished. Now the Examiner reports that on January 5th, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) introduced a bill to add yet another year to the soon-to-be-expiring Patriot Act, extending it until February, 2012, with passage likely to happen after little debate or contention. If passed, this would be the second time the Obama administration has punted on campaign promises to roll back excessive surveillance measures allowed under the act. Last year's extension passed under the heading of the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act. 'Given the very limited number of days Congress has in session before the current deadline, and the fact that the bill's Republican sponsor is only seeking another year, I think it's safe to read this as signaling an agreement across the aisle to put the issue off yet again,' writes Julian Sanchez."
Facebook

Cook's Magazine Claims Web Is Public Domain 565

Posted by timothy from the gotta-break-a-few-eggs dept.
Isarian writes with a story, as reported on Gawker and many other places, that "Cooks Source Magazine is being raked over the coals today as word spreads about its theft of a recipe from Monica Gaudio, a recipe author who discovered her recipe has been published without her knowledge. When confronting the publisher of the offending magazine, she was told, 'But honestly Monica, the web is considered "public domain" and you should be happy we just didn't "lift" your whole article and put someone else's name on it!' In addition to the story passing around online, Cooks Source Magazine's Facebook page is being overwhelmed with posts by users glad to explain copyright law to the wayward publisher."
Graphics

Soviet Image Editing Tool From 1987 146

Posted by timothy from the airbrushing-is-so-stalinist-1940s dept.
nacturation writes "Three years before Photoshop 1.0 was released, computer engineers in the USSR were already retouching photographs using some surprisingly advanced technology. A video shows how the Soviets went about restoring damaged images with the help of rotary scanners, magnetic tape, and trackballs. No word on whether this technology was used to fake moon landings or put missiles in Cuba." Photo manipulation in the USSR (and elsewhere) had a pretty good jump on computers, though.
The Courts

Jammie Thomas Hit With $1.5 Million Verdict 764

Posted by timothy from the tickling-the-dragon's-tail dept.
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from CNET: "Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the Minnesota woman who has been fighting the recording industry over 24 songs she illegally downloaded and shared online four years ago, has lost another round in court as a jury in Minneapolis decided today that she was liable for $1.5 million in copyright infringement damages to Capitol Records, for songs she illegally shared in April 2006. ... The trial is the third for Thomas-Rasset, after one jury found her liable for copyright infringement in 2007 and ordered her to pay $222,000, the judge in the case later ruled that he erred in instructing the jury and called for a retrial. In the second trial, which took place in 2009, a jury found Thomas-Rasset liable for $1.92 million. Thomas-Rasset subsequently asked the federal court for a new trial or a reduction in the amount of damages in July 2009. But earlier this year, the judge found that amount to be 'monstrous and shocking' and reduced the amount to $54,000."
Movies

Prepare To Be Watched While You Watch a Movie 433

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i-see-what-you-did-there dept.
BussyB writes "Gaining entry to some movie theaters lately gives patrons an experience that is on par with going through a TSA security checkpoint at the airport. Then once you've gained access, there are cameras strategically positioned that record your every move. Unfortunately, the extent to which these companies monitor movie-goers is only going to get worse."

Slashdot Top Deals

How many Bavarian Illuminati does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Three: one to screw it in, and one to confuse the issue.

Close