Slashdot Mirror

"The BBC sells these shows to networks in other countries. They're not going to be interested unless they have exclusivity."

I don't think thats true. You can watch Comedy Centrals The Daily Show on the Internet:
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/ index.jhtml

Yet its shown on CNN here and Comedy Channel and its coming to the UK soon:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/10/04/daily_show_to _air_in.html

So I don't see how that can be true, especially since it would be sold rather than given away free (like Daily Show). But more to the point, I *can't* get BBC here, its not available, only BBC World is available, so its not competiting in many markets with itself. They could (at minimim) sell it to markets where they don't have distribution deals.

Noticed on boingboing.net that a Chinese company is marketing a DRM-free version of an ebook reader using an eInk screen.

Although I don't think it's on sale, it is the Holy EBook Reader Grail we've been seeking for ten years.

If we're gonna download ebooks, we should have a reader to read them with, no?

Hardly.

The linked article (a piece of legitimate journalism) should be unbiased, the headline need not be. Perspective is important as it creates an environment in which intelligent discussion can gestate. Rather than merely squelching what you perceive as bias with a random slew of generalizations, perhaps you should understand the issue at hand:

P2P filesharing. The two stances? Copyright infringement vs. legitimate music acquisition.

Why isn't it a big deal? The smaller labels aren't complaining about filesharing...independent artists aren't complaining...it seems only major labels care. Most artists on those labels make only 7 to 8 points on CD sales anyway, so they don't profit. If music sales decline (and a number of studies have shown that P2P does not harm, and may even boost sales, as shown here, here (PDF), and here, just to name a few) then the artists really don't feel the hurt, as they profit mostly from merchandising and live shows. Both of those require fans. Thus, the more people to hear their music, the more likely they'll sell out a show, or sell more merchandise, and thus profit. This is why more and more artists are endorsing file sharing. If you understand the real issue of corporate control (Infinity, Clearchannel, and Viacom control the vast majority of radio in America, as well as venues, and where I live in Cleveland, Clearchannel owns all of the billboards), then you will notice that a bias here isn't so bad.

Arists need an audience to exist. If they are not on a major label and thus can't get airplay, how can they find an audience? (hint, the answer is filesharing).

Rash generalizations and non-sequitors do little to address the issues and, rather than bias, are what paints Slashdot in a poor light and keeps it from being taken seriously as more than a niche geek site with very rigid agendas and a strict groupthink policy.

...but I doubt you'd ever see them implimented.

Then again...

Game developers and authors, all at once? It's like it was coordinated!

Compare these quotes:

"To have them resell the games, with developers having no participation, that's just wrong. That's just fleecing us." -TFA

"...Authors and publishers [complain] that amazon.com offers books for sale at different prices: list price, new books at lower prices, and used books. Authors, literary agents, and publishers are quoted as saying they think they are being deprived of royalties and they want their share!"
-BoingBoing

Story lifted directly from BoingBoing. Even the quote from Wired was lifted directly from the BoingBoing story.

See the BoingBoing story here.

As for the 'razor blade' argument cited in TFA, the reason it works for razor blades is because they're cheap...too cheap for people to 'mod' their razors to be able to accept other, cheaper razor blades. This model simply doesn't apply in the world of printer cartridges and cell phones...since it's worth the expense. Lexmark increased the expense by implementing the 'handshake' between the cartridge and the printer, but circumventing that proved to be worth the expense as well. When Lexmark attempted to invoke DMCA they got slapped down, and rightly so.

The point is, if I own a product, be it cellphone, printer, or razor, it is mine. The courts ultimately ruled against Lexmark in this matter, and I expect (and hope) that they will rull against the cellphone companies as well.

Squiddy looks a lot like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as featured in Boing-Boing and elsewhere.

Why on earth would I want a shotgun, when I can use a BFG instead??

According to this article the company has been able to silently (and with no-opt-out policy) upgrade the TiVo to include the red flag stuff(some shows can be delete or not retained more than 7 days...you know..)
Very..."unconfortable"...
From boing boing:
Earlier this month, TiVo owners discovered that a mandatory, non-optional "update" to their TiVos changed the built-in software so that broadcasters could flag certain shows for automatic deletion and for restriction from use with TiVoToGo. David Zatz, a TiVo owner, decided to cancel his TiVo service. After all, he'd bought a device that could record all shows, not one that could record all shows save those that some paranoid Hollywood exec, overzealous broadcaster, or fumble-fingered technician gave him permission to record. TiVo had broken his device and he didn't want to keep using it. But when he looked up canceling his TiVo, he found out that under the terms of his "agreement" with TiVo (e.g., the crap he clicked through when get got set up), he was obliged to pay a $150 "early cancellation" fee.

only 7 days behind the curve!

boing boing - seven days ago....

This reminds me of the time that CmdrTaco said Slashdot Subscribers Now See The Future, except this is the exact opposite.... more like Slashdot Subscribers Now See the Past!

This was posted on BoingBoing yesterday.

What I find more intersting is how the IFPI (international version of RIAA) has released software that checks for P2P software and automatically deletes copyrighted material from your machine. How long before this is distributed as a trojan by the **AA?

This was posted on BoingBoing yesterday.

What I find more intersting is how the IFPI (international version of RIAA) has released software that checks for P2P software and automatically deletes copyrighted material from your machine. How long before this is distributed as a trojan by the **AA?

noise tripping this flag seems unlikely Other commentary on O'reilly blog

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/15/wipo_wants_to _give_w.html

They've done this many times without any fanfare: each result URL is a link to a Google wrapper, but they use onMouseOver='' to pretend to show you the real URL in your status bar. Here's one write-up about what was being done recently.

I suppose it would be good for astronauts to get their own back on the Space toilet

(For those not in the know, it includes a upward facing camera and monitor for aiming)

but i think i should bring this to people's attention:

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/15/wipo_wants_to _give_w.html

Yet another example which only shows that Slashdot only shows old news or dupes.

Boing Boing is the place to be!
As usual they posted this story yesterday

How long unti l they post a link to 5th graders re-enactment of Devo's "Whip-It"

Yet another example which only shows that Slashdot only shows old news or dupes.

Boing Boing is the place to be!
As usual they posted this story yesterday

How long unti l they post a link to 5th graders re-enactment of Devo's "Whip-It"

Yet another example which only shows that Slashdot only shows old news or dupes.

Boing Boing is the place to be!
As usual they posted this story yesterday

How long unti l they post a link to 5th graders re-enactment of Devo's "Whip-It"

or haven't you read about FEMA detainment centers for evacuees?

more New Orleans nightmares...

While I appreciate that you're looking at the bigger picture, bear in mind that this is an accessibility issue, not a "choice of browser" issue.

I've been following the part-15.org mailing list, and one of the issues is that donated computers (to be used as kiosks) was originally thought to REQUIRE windows - thereby leading to the licensing issues.

The great part is that there's a reported workaround for it. All that you need is a browser extension that identifies itself as IE6 (Firefox User Agent Switching extension, or Opera, which identifies itself as IE6 by default).
* This was not tested by myself, the site was overloaded yesterday

So you can't use anything but WIN IE and there's a captcha just in case your visually impaired - but hey you can phone...
Xeni de BoingBoinghttp://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/06/fem a_to_mac_linux_us.html blogs that when you try to register by phone an automatic voice says it will send a form out to your registered address ...i.e. UNDERWATER.

Boing Boing report (link above) that OPERA or any modern browser works so long as it spoofs that it is IE6.

FEMA, more like FUBAR

And then there are the embarrassing dupes and story descriptions that are just blatantly wrong. In a world where everyone and their dog has one or more blogs, Slashdot is quickly becoming irrelevant.

As an aside, I think comment moderation should be done the same was as meta-moderation: You get 10 random comments to moderate on, instead of cherry-picking them.

clickety....

they may have used these but that would mean someone appropriate cared....

So is it because they're predominantly black that it has taken SIX days for help to arrive?

Appology not accepted.

You linking to a story on Boing Boing reminded me of something that caught my attention on there a couple of days ago. The Post shows two almost identical pictures of people carrying bags of items taken from stores. The difference is that the picture of a black person with a bag has a caption says they were "looting", the caption of the picture of the white person with a bag says they "found" the items.

If this is the same guy who got noted on Boing Boing a while back, he wants to set these kiosks up in the Astrodome where the 30,000 displaced Superdome residents will be staying for a while.

Perhaps the statement is a logical fallacy when it comes down to it, but my experience has been that most people who go through the trial by fire to become bona fide authors are pretty firm when it comes to intellectual rights. In fact, I don't think I've met a single pro author who isn't. For that matter, part of being a professional author is understanding that you make your living through your royalties, and it is therefore very important to protect them.

Cory Doctorow might disagree with you. Much of his success is arguably down to releasing his books under a creative commons license for free online.

In his speech Ebooks: Neither E, Nor Books he points out that releasing free electronic copies of books has been shown to increase sales dramatically. In other articles he's written on BoingBoing, he argues that the best thing an author can get is exposure and word-of-mouth advertising; and releasing your books free online is a very good way of achieving that.

Cory Doctorow is also a representative of the EFF, if memory serves, and is certainly very critical of the RIAA. Nor is he alone in his views. Protecting your rights is all very well, but if giving up some rights means that more people know of your works, you'll make more money in the long run.

X-box in a 1979 Millenium Falcon model

UK Police forces arrest people for using browsers such as Lynx: http://www.boingboing.net/2005/01/27/jailed_for_us ing_a_n.html Apparently this guy got 2 years jail time, he's gonna have an arsehole the size of a clowns pocket by the time he comes out. N.

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/01/27/jailed_for_us ing_a_n.html

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/31/katrina_aid_i dea_fre.html

There's an idea to set up communications in the Astrodome.

Along similar lines, part of the Apple Corp (Beatles record label) v. Apple Computer settlement was that the computer company stay out of the music industry to avoid trademark confusion. So when Macs started making sounds for the first time, the default sound was called "SoSuMi".

But only after "Let It Beep" was rejected.

The promoter, Alfredo Romeo, calls them Blobjects which he heard described in a speech by Bruce Sterling.

Here's a link to the Bruce Sterling speech, referenced by Alfredo Romeo, courtesy of
boingboing.

The promoter, Alfredo Romeo, calls them Blobjects which he heard described in a speech by Bruce Sterling.

Here's a link to the Bruce Sterling speech, referenced by Alfredo Romeo, courtesy of
boingboing.

FTA: "It's not just the Defense Department but a wide variety of networks that have been hit," including the departments of State, Energy and Homeland Security as well as defense contractors, the official said. "This is an ongoing, organized attempt to siphon off information from our unclassified systems."

This seems like the work of terrorists to me. They gather unclassified intel from multiple sources and then they can prove/disprove rumours (leaks?) of a secret nature. This puts a strain on the agencies to ensure that solid intel can not be assembled from less potent information, and yet many citizens complain about the slow pace in which free information flows out of the government. Look at what they are up against, today. (I know I'm going to get hammered on that statement) I think we're seeing that delicate balance between freedom of information and security will be tipping in the near future as a direct result of these attacks. It's never been very balanced anyway. I might be a touch left-wing, an idealist -- but to me there needs also to be a careful approach to protecting the homeland, whether it's in Canada, the US or abroad. I have a sneaky feeling that someone we know had something to do with this, and it's likely not the Chinese government -- I think it was the FSM, or possibly a smaller cell -- the Army of the 12 Monkeys!

There are many pressures facing religions in the modern world and I think we all need to be more supportive.

Supportive? What's bad about reducing the prevalence of a collective delusion? You want to believe in Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever I certainly won't stop you, but I won't be sad if people come to their senses either.

I am not a huge privacy kind of guy, but google is getting a little crazy with what they save about you now.

They are now recording click-throughs on their search pages. Why do they need this information? It wasn't too long ago that links on google.com went straight to the link... not back through the google servers...

Just remember to clean out your google desktop index history.

Is our privacy now worth more than free software?

(Tin-foil hat mode off)

As it turns out, the BBC does not condone this, and has written an official response to Boing Boing:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/15/bbc_wikipedia _is_not.html

It was the Beeb that put up the fake article about a fake dead pop star.

That appears not to be the case. As mentioned on the Boing Boing follow-up, it seems that somebody else added the initial article, and some BBC employee, who had nothing to do with the production or promotion of the game, added the Boy*d Upp page.

what are the chances of a BBC man putting up an article connected to a fake BBC website coincidentally?

I don't think it was completely coincidental. Working at the BBC certainly increased his odds of hearing about the game, and probably made him more willing to add on to the stuff at Wikipedia. But so far there's no evidence of a conspiracy at the BBC to maim Wikipedia for profit. So I don't think we could really call it intentional, either.

Extra Extra! Read all about it!

Actually, it seems to be more of a case of fanbase going wild. From the article:

I'm Rob, the Senior Producer on the Jamie Kane game. A couple of people have emailed the BBC asking for an official response to the Jamie Kane/Wikipedia thing. If you guys still have space for it, would you mind adding in the following, as there seems to be some confusion:

"Just to confirm, the BBC would never use Wikipedia as a marketing tool. The first posting was simply a case of a fan of the game getting into the spirit of alternative reality a little too much. The follow up posting was made by a fan of the game who happens to work for the BBC and was made without the knowledge of anyone in the Jamie Kane Team or BBC Marketing."

There's also another post with a BBC email saying that it wasn't from anyone on the group working on the game.

From BoingBoing:
"Just to confirm, the BBC would never use Wikipedia as a marketing tool. The first posting was simply a case of a fan of the game getting into the spirit of alternative reality a little too much. The follow up posting was made by a fan of the game who happens to work for the BBC and was made without the knowledge of anyone in the Jamie Kane Team or BBC Marketing."

That's just countering the other effects of laptops.

Walmart also censors your pictures if they look too "professional"

A still image of the Prandtl-Glauert cloud accompanies the "Discovery's clouds of glory over" story at the MSNBC.com "Cosmic Log." And on July 16, 1969, the Apollo 11 Saturn V rocket was photographed wearing a splendid white condensation cloud, possibly of the Prandtl-Glauert type. Seeing stuff like this sort of makes you want to take a course in fluid mechanics.

"Spooky" is what happens in the transonic regime (speeds hovering just above and below Mach 1). "Cool" is the visible stuff that sometimes pops out and, if lucky, is recorded for the rest of us to see and marvel at.

"If you lower the bar far enough, and make most everyone criminal, You can pretty much take away everyone's rights."

I know what you mean. I mean, when even the president of the U.S. can't control himself from violating copyright (having an iPod chock full of illegally copied songs), what hope is there for the rest of us? http://www.boingboing.net/2005/04/13/bushs_ipod_fi lled_wi.html

Here's a pdf of the presentation he gave.

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/29/michael_lynns _contro.html

-ch0p

even more innocent

A post a while back in boing boing (http://www.boingboing.net/2003/07/27/wifi_is_too_ expensiv.html)
noted that the added cost of administering and accounting for a pay wifi site ($30) versus a free site ($6) made the profit very difficult. In comparison a free site was cheap enough to easily make a net profit from the increased traffic it drew.

So simply show then the money.