Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

Comment Re:rotten at the top (Score 1) 341

I say aggressively prosecute everyone you can prove was in on it, top to bottom.

I couldn't agree more. Certainly a criminal investigation involving 5300 employees should be able to provide enough evidence to prove that the managers were involved, or at least cognizant of the crime, enough managers should be able to point fingers up the stack as well, and bring some serious penalties against the senior management.

All of these people should be doing time, and/or should be banned from employment in a position of trust. The higher up the stack should also involve some hefty fines too.

Comment Re:This is serious business (Score 1) 244

Yes, many parts of the world did fine without bees for a long time, but that was before those parts of the world were trying to sustain billions of people, and I'm sure those parts of the world will continue just fine without european honeybees after all the people have starved to death.

Comment Bunch of useless cunts. (Score 1) 288

So, if I have this right: A bunch of useless cunts can't figure out how to exploit their own talents to make money, but god forbid anyone else should know how to do it.

Fuck Off!

So called intellectual property is an artificial monopoly to begin with, and it is becoming more and more clear that it is not suitable in the digital era. Just as the popularization of the printing press created a need for reformed perceptions and essentially the founding the intellectual property principles, the digital revolution requires some radical changes in perceptions.

The most balanced approach would probably some form of mandatory licensing. If you are the producer of a creative work, you must apply for a copyright registration, and set a value to your work. If someone wishes to use it, they can purchase a license for that value or not. No registration, no copyright. That essentially creates a free market for creative works while still protecting the creators rights. At the same time it protects the consumer from the anti-competetive behaviours we see with "exclusive distribution rights" etc. Any party has an equal opportunity to access any media.

This does not completely cut out the middle-man, but makes that role much more competitive and puts the power back in the hands of the artists, while putting more money back in the pockets of the artists.

Comment Re:landlords aren't legally allowed to consider (Score 1) 371

I don't know about the UK, but In Canada private investigators need a license. This definitely fits the definition:

“private investigator” means a person who investigates and furnishes information for hire or reward, including a person who
(i) searches for and furnishes information as to the personal character or actions of a person, or the character or kind of business or occupation of a person...

Comment Re:A prisoner could just as easily read the works. (Score 1) 527

One of the mysteries of the universe is that anti-religious people such as myself tend to support freedom of religion much more than religious people do.

The answers to that question can probably be found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

TL;DR: "Religious people" are to too stupid to understand a different viewpoint.

Comment DMCA (Score 1) 99

Doesn't the DMCA have some anti-circumvention measures in there? While the FBI may be immune to that sort of thing, I'm pretty sure that circumventing encryption for profit is not exempt, aside from being a criminal offence. Despite the fact that the phone belonged to an alleged criminal, afaik it is still illegal for a private individual to hack into it.

Comment Re:It's open ended (Score 1) 70

Most intelligent people realize that there is no such thing as a free lunch, so the question is: "how is this getting paid for?" Any service that is promoting itself as "free" is misrepresenting itself, and that needs to be addressed.

Corporations should be required to reveal all the data being collected and how it is used, and consumers should have an option to decline data collection. Furthermore, refusal to offer service to someone that has declined data collection should be considered discrimination and made illegal.

Comment Re:Not a dime up front (Score 1) 224

The better solution to this is to take the $100M and put it out for competition to competitive bidders. Stipulate minimum service levels, required coverage areas AND require a matching investment from the bidder.

An even better solution to this might be an armed uprising. Take all though fucking guns that you Americans are so proud of, and show us you know what they are for.

Slashdot Top Deals

It seems that more and more mathematicians are using a new, high level language named "research student".

Working...