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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Actually 3rd point was agreement with trial jud (Score 1) 23

Actually whoever the new guy is, I don't find the site to be "improved" at all; seems a little crummy. The story was butchered and incorrectly interpreted, and the all important software for interaction seems less interactive.

But what do I know?

As to my absence I've been a bit overwhelmed by work stuff, sorry about that, it's no excuse :)

Comment Actually 3rd point was agreement with trial judge (Score 4, Informative) 23

The story as published implies that the ruling overruled the lower court on the 3 issues. In fact, it was agreeing with the trial court on the third issue -- that the sporadic instances of Vimeo employees making light of copyright law did not amount to adopting a "policy of willful blindness".

Submission + - Appeals court slams record companies on DMCA in Vimeo case

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: In the long-simmering appeal in Capitol Records v. Vimeo, the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld Vimeo's positions on many points regarding the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. In its 55 page decision (PDF) the Court ruled that (a) the Copyright Office was dead wrong in concluding that pre-1972 sound recordings aren't covered by the DMCA, (b) the judge was wrong to think that Vimeo employees' merely viewing infringing videos was sufficient evidence of "red flag knowledge", and (c) a few sporadic instances of employees being cavalier about copyright law did not amount to a "policy of willful blindness" on the part of the company. The Court seemed to take particular pleasure in eviscerating the Copyright Office's rationales. Amicus curiae briefs in support of Vimeo had been submitted by a host of companies and organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, Public Knowledge, Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Microsoft, Pinterest, Tumblr, and Twitter.

Comment Re:Jingoism and Nativism (Score 0) 242

If you think not letting Apple open a few stores, unless they sell a few goods from India in return, is comparable to the utter and complete destruction of an entire civilization's economic status in the world during the colonial era, in the guise of free (which it was not) markets, you are completely unread of world history outside the western perspective, if not the remnants of the cold-war era propaganda perspective, that too in a rather shallow sense. This has nothing to do with Trump or whatever is his message. I am talking history, and its consequences on policy, not pandering politics and demagogues. Read at least one book on the devastation of colonialism and force-imposed free trade on India. Until you do, you won't get this. Yes, I can hear myself talk; not sure you can.

Comment Re:Jingoism and Nativism (Score 5, Insightful) 242

You are ignoring the fact that India was colonized and used as nothing but as a market for centuries and sucked dry. Those scars will take a long while to heal and those are lessons not easily forgotten. The word "Free Trade" has a different meaning to an Indian (as well as to those who also endured the Opium Wars and the Black Ships incident in their history). They had completely different experiences with it in their history. This is a rational strategy from those experiences.

Likewise the idea of protectionism has cold war era connotations in US; not so in India. It was a necessarily strategy for India to protect itself from neo-colonialism when its capacity to compete was never allowed to mature. India started rolling back these defenses (which naturally hold back growth - security vs. speed) gradually once it felt its industries and services are maturing and have a chance to actually compete in a free market. But that is a gradual process rather than a binary choice.

> Why should the people of one country be privileged over the people of any other? Just because they were born there?

That said, I generally agree with the sentiment. But even the majority in US don't agree with that.

Comment Re:Thought he retired... (Score 2) 257

This is a simple general rule: When someone merely points to the expert consensus (with respect to any mainstream science), without any innovation, they do not need to be challenged on their personal expertise. People who do refute an expert consensus are those who need to be challenged on their expertise and are asked to submit their evidence to peer review.

I don't need to be a biologist to say that evolution is real. If I say it isn't, THEN my credentials come into question.

Comment The risks of extrapolating (Score 1) 830

Husbands.

There are logical fallacies here. If we can simulate something in "some" way, we do not necessarily have to assume that we will eventually end up with perfect simulations, even with infinite time. Or that ever growing size of simulations will have to necessarily culminate in universe scale simulations. This optimism is along the idea of Victorian assumptions of progress or along the lines of Cartesian optimism before it was tempered with Lockean empiricism. There will usually be previously unanticipated hard stops... like the speed of light.

Tyson is obviously a master of his subject and I am not a physicist and I don't understand these simulation theories in their native form. But this summary makes it sound like we are getting ahead of ourselves with assumptions.

Comment Re:This JVM stuff is BS (Score 1) 121

> Indentation weakens the language.

The goal of a syntax is to, first and foremost, promote human readability. Python philosophy is to discourage clever code. Many, like myself, find consistent indentation and low character noise to be more readable. If you don't, that's fine. It is a preference. If you like complete flexibility, go with Lisp (or Hy in Python), since its minimal syntax gives maximal power of expression - we all should, if it was all about power. But we don't. I prefer reading Python than Lisp, most of the time. We all like a balance between a helpful syntax and maximal expressive power. Where we individually draw the line differs.

> Everyone formats their code but forcing it makes for a less powerful language, so why do such idiocy?

It's not idiocy; it was clever and it was a well-considered choice. We already indent anyway. So why not codify that into syntactic rules, thereby making the language more clean to read? Python tries to get rid of needless punctuation. We write single line expressions/statements most of the time. So Python (and many others) makes them the default by making the semi-colon optional and instead provides a back-slash if you want multi-line code.

I used/tried every major modern language. I find Python to be the simplest and cleanest to read (many functional languages do a good job as well). That's a preference of course. I like Boo over C# because it has a Python-like indentation syntax. YMMV.

Nimrod, Delight, Converge and Cobra are other lesser known programming languages that use indentation syntax. Haskell uses it to some degree.

When I first saw Python and indentation syntax some 15 years ago, I thought: How clever... and immediately got used to it. Some don't and never get over it. Some get the same feeling with Lisp, but I didn't, even though I acknowledge the arguments. It's a preference.

Comment Re:This JVM stuff is BS (Score 1) 121

I think everyone learns quickly to pay attention to indentation settings in Python. I make sure that mine converts tabs to spaces and that tabs are always visible so that there is no trip up when editing code from other people. I use autoformat a lot in languages like Java but don't in Python. So I never ran into that problem. Since one does frequent runs with Python code, my editor just saves whenever I hit run. So I never needed a separate timed (if that is what you meant) autosave.

Comment Re:This JVM stuff is BS (Score 2) 121

> And to tie it all together, the .Net Runtime is a natural evolution of VBRUNxx.DLL

The .Net runtime was a complete break from VBRUNxx.DLL. Most VB6 users felt as much and many refused to move for a long time.
C# did have a strong Delphi influence since Anders Hejlsberg is/was the architect of both.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." -- Bernard Berenson

Working...