Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Dramatic contemporary issues (Score 1) 157

I also like Enterprise, especially for its "stuff isn't quite ready for space travel" and the Vulcan's "we have to help the poor earthlings and not let them hurt themselves as they venture out" approach. The time travel story line jumped the shark; and the alternate universe one, "In a Mirror, Darkly," involving the Tholian Web and some real promise. A ST:Empire with the Klingons as good guys had a lot of potential.

I liked it because they had "marines" as boarding parties.

Yes, that added a bit of nautical authenticity.

Comment Re:May I suggest ... (Score 1) 63

That's pretty expensive. There may be some prepaid plans that are worse ($30 for 1Gb+unlimited V&T is probably hard to beat), but once you get to the regular subscriptions from the big four, especially family plans, it's really poor value.

I was always surprised Google structured Fi that way, it struck me that building a phone service around a price schedule is doomed to failure. Sooner or later everyone else changes their prices (or what you get for those prices) and suddenly your innovative pricing doesn't look so great any more.

Comment Re:Goodbye, good movie (Score 1) 121

Look into Renegades, Tim Russ' project, which basically did that very thing.

They needed to do something because Renegades was rather boring. It had a lot of promise but was too disjointed to be any good, and certainly didn't interest me is supporting the sequel(s). They, IMHO, traded too much on "Hey, this is a new type of ST" and didn't put enough time into making it an interesting story.

What I don't understand is why professionals think Paramount will ignore their work even when it uses their copyrighted material? Make a pilot, even crowd fund it, pitch it and hope it sells; or try to license the material so you don't wind up in court later.

Comment Re: Goodbye, good movie (Score 1) 121

Xerox willingly gave Apple tours of their technology, in exchange for an opportunity to buy shares in Apple (from which they profited).

Okay, but by the same token, movie studios let people see their movies in exchange for a cut of ticket prices. If showing for a fee imparts a license to copy, then both Apple and movie goers receive this.

In both cases, it's not license to copy but certainly allows you to take the idea and express it in a new and different fashion. Copyright protects the expression, not the underlying concept or idea. There are plenty of "Zombies / Aliens / Animals attack shows and movies but each is a different expression of the idea, and the expression is protected. For example, I can watch Transformers and decide to create a movie about aliens who are on earth disguised as common household appliances and reveal themselves to fight off an evil invader, because that is an underlying idea. No one would mistake my movie for Transformers. I can't call it Transformers or used a copy of Bumblebee or character names, etc.

Besides, you can't copyright an idea. Apple didn't get any Xerox code; they had to re-implement everything themselves, and made a number of innovations in GUIs as part of the process.

Are you saying it's theft to copy an expression, but not theft to copy an idea, and "concept and feel" is an expression, whereas "look and feel" is an idea? Presumably Alec Peters didn't use any Star Trek footage (although ZenShadow says he did use some Star Trek costumes). Also, like Apple, he produced something new.

The difference is Apple took the idea of a desktop and created their own version of, they didn't just make a duplicate of Xerox's implementation. Using ST props, copies of vessels, names, etc. would cross the line between the concept and how it is expressed. He wasn't making a satirical look at ST, which may have been ok, but a drama using material from ST. Like it or not, Paramount has to protect its copyrights. Much of copyright law is broken, but the underlying idea is sound.

In addition, while not relevant to this discussion, is the different philosophy exposed early in the development of the PC. It was much more of an academic / hobbyist ethos were ideas were shared more freely and the idea that they should be copyrighted and protected was much less prevalent. Once significant sums of money became involved the attitude changed. Hollywood, OTOH, has always looked to the money.

Comment Re:Retracting the Truth (Score 1) 69

They're saying that technically accurate or not, the article is misleading and doesn't give context. In particular, this supposed threat is almost impossible to exploit in practice, as it requires the attacker:

1. Knows exactly when you're going to swap a SIM card over or otherwise change phones
2. Also knows you simultaneously have a bunch of messages waiting to be sent, that the attacker actually cares about.
3. Also knows that you have gone into settings, and unchecked a setting that would normally be checked that warns you if a change in encryption keys has occurred
4. Has access to all the infrastructure in the middle.

That's a tall order. It'd be easier to just steal your phone, or hit you on the head with a blunt instrument XKCD style until you talk.

The letter also points out that the article discourages people from using a popular messaging platform over this issue whose security is generally first rate, encouraging them to seek alternatives that either may be insecure, or may be taken as a sign of guilt (eg Signal), making it easier to pinpoint dissidents with something to hide.

So, yeah, the article may be technically correct, the best kind of correct, but if it leaves people with a false impression, then it's probably right to withdraw it.

Comment Re:Why the democrat icon? (Score 2) 1398

That is the icon of the democratic party on the banner for this story. While Trump has been known to have held both sides of most matters lately, I have yet to see him call himself a democrat - and he most certainly did not have their endorsement to run for president.

Trump 2004:

"In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat," Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in a 2004 interview. "It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats. ...But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we've had some pretty bad disaster under the Republicans."

I think he doesn't really have any basic idealogical underlings beyond what makes him money and keeps him in the public eye. I would not be surprised if he pisses off both parties equally. Depending on how that is done it can be good or bad.

Comment Re:Perhaps globalism might be in fear for once. (Score 1) 1398

Less H1-b fraud/abuse, more regular employment for those that want it, and a climate where anyone can succeed - not just those that identify correctly.

Even if one opposes him, one should be hoping for success.

If he can deliver that, great. I want him to succeed so the country succeeds, even if I didn't want him as president. I am concerned that he has promised a whole lot of stuff he can't deliver one. To start, his claims to bring back manufacturing to the US and punish those who import from abroad. Nice campaign pitch but a very tough reality. When it doesn't happen he'll blame everyone but himself, it'll be interesting to see what happens when many of his supporters decide they have been sold a bill of goods. He's already backed down from his build a wall claim by saying it'll be build now, pay later.

Comment Re:already exceeding expectations (Score 1) 1398

As a European (from Finland, and a Hitchensian socialist and anti-theist), I've felt the policies of secretary of state Clinton on my daily life, and am convinced she's a warmonger. I haven't gotten that vibe from Trump. If anything, he won't meddle in middle eastern conflicts trying to change governments, and seems in good terms with the greatest nuclear power after the USA. So in terms of nuclear war, or regional wars, I think we'll be better off.

Again, I'm saying this as someone who's not a US citizen, nor do I share the American culture or history in any way. I'm looking out for the interests of my family and me, and am glad Hillary isn't president.

I don't think it is so much as that he is not a war monger but that he doesn't care about geo politics except how they impact him. Russia annexing the Crimea and going after the Ukraine? No problem, Putin likes me and says nice things about me; so what if he wants to take back land he thinks is his? If he can do it it just shows how powerful he is.

My real concern is this seeming ability to rationalize any failure on his part as the result of devious actions of someone else and thus not his fault, as well as his need to always be the "best," even hen facts dictate otherwise. An unwillingness to listen to, or tolerate, dissent is vey dangerous in a political leader. We'll see how he takes being shown up or when someone says no to his face.

Comment Re:Not impulsive at all (Score 1) 1398

Yeah, I must admit I'm on the impulsive side though. The entire conspiracy theory that, for example, he tweets to draw attention away from the crap he's doing has two fatal flaws: he's always tweeted like that, and he doesn't actually apparently give a rat's ass if anyone knows he's corrupt and racist.

He's essentially had some luck in his life, but doesn't strike me as particularly smart or calculating. He apparently based his election campaign by studying Mussolini, apparently oblivious to the long term damage such a strategy will cause to, well, pretty much everyone.

I'm not seeing it. I see someone impulsive and thin skinned, who takes the easy route when offered, and has little imagination or understanding of people.

Slashdot Top Deals

"You can have my Unix system when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers." -- Cal Keegan