This is the quality discussion I've come to expect from Slashdot. A "joking" sexist comment is still a sexist comment. And this crap is moderated to +4 or +5. How can you claim gender doesn't enter into the discussion in tech spaces, when these spaces are full of dudebros who drive everyone else out?
I think I've finally figured out why so many of you stick with the delusion tech is a strict meritocracy. Y'all don't want to admit maybe you're not the best at what you do, that toxic culture has driven your competition out. With apologies to Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ego depends upon his not understanding it!"
Yeah, it's old. But also you can host it yourself, it's simple, it has a web interface, and it works. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it's bad. Especially if it's a solution to "a problem that can't be unique or unusual"
"Private enterprise is more efficient!" go the cries of the free-market absolutists. The question is, more efficient at what, though. Because here it seems telecoms are optimized to extract maximum dollars from the population, which is not something the citizenry wants out of basic infrastructure.
Probably not. This feels similar to the copyright situation surrounding recipes.
You can't copyright a recipe. You can copyright a particular description of a recipe, which is why many recipes come with flowery descriptions and pretty pictures. Those can be copyrighted. But the thing itself, the list of instructions, cannot be.
By the same token, it'd be unsurprising if the courts found that particular wordings or diagrams can be copyrighted, but the joke itself -- the end product -- cannot be copyrighted.
Conan isn't a hack, he's genuinely funny (IMHO). This is probably coincidental.
Somewhat related (from Zach Wiener): An Open Letter to Sarah Silverman
Ostensibly government exists to provide services. It's reasonable that one would have to provide information in the course of receiving these services. But, if a for-profit corporation is asking for personal information, it's almost assured to be part of a scheme to extract money from me.
Or to put it another way, there's only a very small chance government thugs will use my address to knock down my door, but a very large chance a company will use my address to send me spam. So I don't see why the result of the study is surprising.
Before you all flame me, I'm not American, and neither is this study.
"I know this is a g2ey 4r34, and this may sound like a c0\/er up, but we need to keep this f41led inv3stment off the b00ks or do a \/\/rite off. N0b0dy will find ou7."
There tends to be anglo-centrism on the web, but it's never too late to start turning the tide.
I'm sure many over in Quebec would love the TLD.tabernac
Third-tier newspapers. Neighbourhood and college newspapers tend to be members of "newswires". That membership will grant the publication permission to print stories which are posted on the wire. Whenever a story in your city newspaper is prepended by "REUTERS" or "CANADIAN PRESS" or whatever, is a story from the wire. The Associated Press isn't forming NewsRight to chase community papers, because (at least the legitmate or mainstream papers) are already paying customers, and have been for decades.
Paraphrasing. In both American and Canadian copyright law, facts cannot be copyrighted — only creative works conveying facts (i.e. the writing itself). So paraphrasing a story is "okay" it's considered weaksauce journalism, but not illegal. Keep in mind that proper paraphrasing isn't trivial; it involves telling the story your own way, not just changing a couple of words in the original and passing it off as your own. That's "plagarism" (read: copyright infringement) and definitely illegal.
It's worth remembering that there are cases where permissive licenses are attached to text, either implicitly or explicitly. Companies want newspapers to reprint portions of their press releases (although again, "weaksauce journalism"), and occasionally there's a piece of relevant writing licensed under the Creative Commons (though these tend to be opinion pieces and columnists, not news. It's a bit more common for photos.)
I'm happy to try and answer any more questions. (I was the editor-in-chief of a university newspaper.)
"With modern technology, if all there is is music, we don't need musicians to do it.... Get 'em to do it once, put it on the Web, and fire the musicians."
Careful where you go with that line of thinking. And if anyone says, "there's a difference between a physics lecture, and something creative like music," I would respond that you've never had a good physics teacher. Physics is very creative, once you start getting into the upper levels.
Eric Mazur gave a talk here at the University of Waterloo, and his talk was not about getting rid of lectures, per se. That's something the NPR reporter seems to assume, to the point where (s)he inserted soundbytes from an entirely different physics prof. Mazur's focus is about making the classtime much more interactive, to give students feedback about whether or not they really grasp the concepts. Again, it's about guided creativity. And no, you can't get rid of the professor in that situation.
What are they thinking? The doctors aren't thinking outside the box enough. Really, instead of getting people to sign old-fashioned contracts, they should emulate the EULA. You know, by putting up a plaque in their office which says something like this:
By entering this building, you agree to transfer to this establishment copyright on all creative works you own including but not limited to written works, drawings, photographs, spoken-word works, in perpetuity.
Without arguing that social hygene is a good idea or in some way fair, don't you have to be at least a little stupid to get involved with hiding Jews knowing that you could spend your days alternating between having to telemarket and being pounded in the ass as a result?
I mean, there's lots of things I'd like to do that I don't agree with the laws on, but orange jumpsuit is a terrible look for me and so I don't.
I know I've Godwin'd the thread, but it illustrates my point: it's a bad idea to blindly follow the law, and it's poor critical thinking to blindly condemn those who don't. There are good arguments for not getting involved with drugs, but that's not one of them.
I remember that. There were only a few of us who signed onto the local BBS, and only one other who was playing LORD as regularly as I was. But it made for a compelling reason to log on every day. "If I don't dial in and take my turn, that other guy is going to kill me."
You're right. Taxes are evil and useless. Everyone knows that the infrastructure which enables modern civilization, like roads and plumbing, are paid for with leprechaun gold.
And the military to defend that civilization is created with pixie dust.
Blockbuster's selection sucked. If you only rented the most popular of movies, you'd probably never notice. But they'd have an entire wall of DVD-release-of-the-week, while completely lacking titles which were only a little out of the mainstream.
Have you ever found Mystery Science Theatre 3000 in a Blockbuster? I haven't, and people looked at me funny when I asked. But it's available at this little local rental place with shelves, stuffed floor to ceiling, with movies. They also have a basement full of obscure anime. That's the rental place which is going to stick around. Places like Blockbuster which trade only in common content will have their lunch eaten by NetFlix and download services. But the stores run by actual local movie nerds offering every obscure title under the sun will still have a reason to exist.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the quality discussion I've come to expect from Slashdot. A "joking" sexist comment is still a sexist comment. And this crap is moderated to +4 or +5. How can you claim gender doesn't enter into the discussion in tech spaces, when these spaces are full of dudebros who drive everyone else out?
I think I've finally figured out why so many of you stick with the delusion tech is a strict meritocracy. Y'all don't want to admit maybe you're not the best at what you do, that toxic culture has driven your competition out. With apologies to Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ego depends upon his not understanding it!"
YouTube Red? RedTube? What's the difference?
(Maybe RedTube isn't a thing anymore, but I won't verify its existence from work, and you shouldn't either.)
TaskFreak? http://www.taskfreak.com/origi...
Yeah, it's old. But also you can host it yourself, it's simple, it has a web interface, and it works. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it's bad. Especially if it's a solution to "a problem that can't be unique or unusual"
Funny to see this today, given today's news up here in Canada.
"Private enterprise is more efficient!" go the cries of the free-market absolutists. The question is, more efficient at what, though. Because here it seems telecoms are optimized to extract maximum dollars from the population, which is not something the citizenry wants out of basic infrastructure.
There is. It's called "becoming a billionaire, and probably also a household name".
There's also a Pulitzer in technology. It's called "Selling out to Google".
I think Trump ran for President just so he could stand next to Obama in line and wear an "<-- I'm with Stupid" T-shirt.
>
Imagine a politician copyrighting all the possible jokes which could be made at their expense. That would be quite chilling.
Probably not. This feels similar to the copyright situation surrounding recipes.
You can't copyright a recipe. You can copyright a particular description of a recipe, which is why many recipes come with flowery descriptions and pretty pictures. Those can be copyrighted. But the thing itself, the list of instructions, cannot be.
By the same token, it'd be unsurprising if the courts found that particular wordings or diagrams can be copyrighted, but the joke itself -- the end product -- cannot be copyrighted.
Conan isn't a hack, he's genuinely funny (IMHO). This is probably coincidental. Somewhat related (from Zach Wiener): An Open Letter to Sarah Silverman
On May 12, 2011, Feinstein cosponsored PIPA.
I think this person needs to lose an election.
False. Neil deGrasse Tyson has an amazing story which is exactly about diversity in astrophysics. You can watch it for yourself here.
Factchecking is for winners.
Ostensibly government exists to provide services. It's reasonable that one would have to provide information in the course of receiving these services. But, if a for-profit corporation is asking for personal information, it's almost assured to be part of a scheme to extract money from me.
Or to put it another way, there's only a very small chance government thugs will use my address to knock down my door, but a very large chance a company will use my address to send me spam. So I don't see why the result of the study is surprising.
Before you all flame me, I'm not American, and neither is this study.
"I know this is a g2ey 4r34, and this may sound like a c0\/er up, but we need to keep this f41led inv3stment off the b00ks or do a \/\/rite off. N0b0dy will find ou7."
There tends to be anglo-centrism on the web, but it's never too late to start turning the tide. I'm sure many over in Quebec would love the TLD .tabernac
I agree. If this didn't belong on Slashdot, why'd it get over 400 comments?
Translation: Collecting, cross-referencing, and archiving personally-identifiable information is the job of the government.
There's no way in hell your "right" to be forgotten is more important than our right to remember.
Terminator genes would have made this sort of thing impossible.
I have some answers for you:
Third-tier newspapers. Neighbourhood and college newspapers tend to be members of "newswires". That membership will grant the publication permission to print stories which are posted on the wire. Whenever a story in your city newspaper is prepended by "REUTERS" or "CANADIAN PRESS" or whatever, is a story from the wire. The Associated Press isn't forming NewsRight to chase community papers, because (at least the legitmate or mainstream papers) are already paying customers, and have been for decades.
Paraphrasing. In both American and Canadian copyright law, facts cannot be copyrighted — only creative works conveying facts (i.e. the writing itself). So paraphrasing a story is "okay" it's considered weaksauce journalism, but not illegal. Keep in mind that proper paraphrasing isn't trivial; it involves telling the story your own way, not just changing a couple of words in the original and passing it off as your own. That's "plagarism" (read: copyright infringement) and definitely illegal.
It's worth remembering that there are cases where permissive licenses are attached to text, either implicitly or explicitly. Companies want newspapers to reprint portions of their press releases (although again, "weaksauce journalism"), and occasionally there's a piece of relevant writing licensed under the Creative Commons (though these tend to be opinion pieces and columnists, not news. It's a bit more common for photos.)
I'm happy to try and answer any more questions. (I was the editor-in-chief of a university newspaper.)
Careful where you go with that line of thinking. And if anyone says, "there's a difference between a physics lecture, and something creative like music," I would respond that you've never had a good physics teacher. Physics is very creative, once you start getting into the upper levels.
Eric Mazur gave a talk here at the University of Waterloo, and his talk was not about getting rid of lectures, per se. That's something the NPR reporter seems to assume, to the point where (s)he inserted soundbytes from an entirely different physics prof. Mazur's focus is about making the classtime much more interactive, to give students feedback about whether or not they really grasp the concepts. Again, it's about guided creativity. And no, you can't get rid of the professor in that situation.
(Yes, I was a physics major.)
What are they thinking? The doctors aren't thinking outside the box enough. Really, instead of getting people to sign old-fashioned contracts, they should emulate the EULA. You know, by putting up a plaque in their office which says something like this:
Amateurs.
I know I've Godwin'd the thread, but it illustrates my point: it's a bad idea to blindly follow the law, and it's poor critical thinking to blindly condemn those who don't. There are good arguments for not getting involved with drugs, but that's not one of them.
I remember that. There were only a few of us who signed onto the local BBS, and only one other who was playing LORD as regularly as I was. But it made for a compelling reason to log on every day. "If I don't dial in and take my turn, that other guy is going to kill me."
You're right. Taxes are evil and useless. Everyone knows that the infrastructure which enables modern civilization, like roads and plumbing, are paid for with leprechaun gold.
And the military to defend that civilization is created with pixie dust.
Blockbuster's selection sucked. If you only rented the most popular of movies, you'd probably never notice. But they'd have an entire wall of DVD-release-of-the-week, while completely lacking titles which were only a little out of the mainstream.
Have you ever found Mystery Science Theatre 3000 in a Blockbuster? I haven't, and people looked at me funny when I asked. But it's available at this little local rental place with shelves, stuffed floor to ceiling, with movies. They also have a basement full of obscure anime. That's the rental place which is going to stick around. Places like Blockbuster which trade only in common content will have their lunch eaten by NetFlix and download services. But the stores run by actual local movie nerds offering every obscure title under the sun will still have a reason to exist.
Buh-bye Blockbuster. I won't miss you.
Justin Bieber is Canadian, dude. You might want to pick a more American example.