Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

UK ISPs Consider VPN To Avoid Piracy Crackdown

David Rolfe Re:Internet is not a curiosity anymore (133 comments)

You misunderstand, still, I guess. I'm not wound up or anything of the sort, it's simply I haven't checked in at Slashdot in all these months, and was just picking up where I'd left off, with your reply. (I'm fine to drop it though!)

As far as thread bleed goes -- that's hardly a concern is it? For a sub-thread marked troll at the start and our exchange 5 levels deep, I imagine it's not. Your concern it noted.

Cheers!

more than 3 years ago
top

UK ISPs Consider VPN To Avoid Piracy Crackdown

David Rolfe Re:Internet is not a curiosity anymore (133 comments)

So, I never noticed that you replied to me many months ago. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1737958&cid=33093686 You didn't take my point, so I must have been communicating badly, but I'm still interested in the question I posed, the one I asked you to address. You said:

[...] I want to take notes on it with a stylus, [...] to be able stuff a USB stick in the side of it and put directories of data on it, not sync it to a [...] program running on an entirely separate computer [...]. The iPad is pricey [...] Bring on the rivals, I say.

And then I said:

Address the argument: Are you willing to pay more money than the cost of an iPad for a device that is bigger, has worse battery life, runs windows and lets you manage your own synchronization?[...] The truth is, those devices have existed since the ThinkPad and still exist [...]

See, what I was getting at is: your demands have already been met (and were met first 20 years ago, and HP and the like are still making Windows tablets, or were before better tablets gutted their segment), but you aren't complaining in the context of a device that you already own that meets those demands (they exist, you might have one, I've had several, but they could be improved), you are complaining about a device you don't own, appear to have no intention of buying, and doesn't prevent you from owning any other competitor's device. In fact, you go on to argue largely about quiche eating tone-troll bullshit and not the fact that Windows running, stylus using, expansion socketted tablet PCs have existed for ages and are still available right now. My point in asking "Are you willing to pay more money than the cost of an iPad for a device that is bigger, has worse battery life, runs windows and lets you manage your own synchronization?" is that you can have a Windows running, stylus using, expansion socketted tablet PC right now, but it might cost more than an iPad, it might be bigger than an iPad, and it might have worse battery life than an iPad. Those generally are 'trade-offs', but ones you might be willing to make. I asked because if you are willing to make those trade-offs then you don't need to complain about how it's "about fucking time" or any such nonsense (sorry when I said whinging, I wasn't trying to elicit more tone-trolling), the market is already providing your specifically requested features! Or I guess you could have simply answered 'no' to my question and further said, "I want all the features of the iPad, the cost of the iPad, and I want these other ones, too!" In that case, I guess you're right; that device doesn't exist yet, but Microsoft isn't going to invent it and sell it (not while Ballmer is still there anyhow).

The Galaxy Tab can use a stylus, but I haven't used it personally. Maybe it takes USB, maybe it's cheap, maybe it's big enough (or small enough), maybe it lasts long enough.

All of which is a long way of asking, has the market not met your short list of needs, or has the market not met your needs at your price?

more than 3 years ago
top

To Ballmer, Grabbing iPad's Market Is 'Job One Urgency'

David Rolfe Re:Anger. (764 comments)

Complaining about tone is ad hominem. Address the argument:

Are you willing to pay more money than the cost of an iPad for a device that is bigger, has worse battery life, runs windows and lets you manage your own synchronization?

You can't just whinge that the market isn't serving you.

The truth is, those devices have existed since the ThinkPad and still exist -- and yet you aren't saying you use or still use yours (never mind that the Newton was better by every metric that doesn't include running PhotoShop 3.5).

E.g., I've had one of these for almost 20 years: http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Category:710T

more than 3 years ago
top

DRM Content Drives Availability On P2P Networks

David Rolfe Re:Ipod (211 comments)

Say I have developed a video game designed for multiple game controllers and a large monitor. The market for those on the PC doesn't look viable because I've read statistics that the home theater PC market is two orders of magnitude smaller than the video game console market. All major video game consoles are DRM-locked, and manufacturing and selling a device to install custom firmware to play my game would probably be an anti-circumvention violation in any developed market to which I can affordably move my operations, especially after ACTA becomes law, not to mention that it would likely disable playing major-label video games. What do you recommend that I do next?

You design or license a box of your own. You put video out on those boxes, and you pray your customers have a TV and your game demonstrates a great enough value to drive sales. Oh wait, you thought competing would be easy? You thought you could free-ride on your competitors hardware? They call the shots and you can agree to play by their rules or go it alone. Capitalism!

more than 4 years ago
top

DRM Content Drives Availability On P2P Networks

David Rolfe Re:and it's not just the music industry... (211 comments)

Sibling post is mine, but I may as well log in so maybe someone will see it:

This is why I propose an artificial government enforced monopoly on intended meaning rather than just expression.

Expression monopolies are so 19th century. We need to get on with monetizing the roots of expression: intent.

Just imagine how great that world will be!

(No really, the implications are awesome.)

more than 3 years ago
top

Transformers Special Edition Chevy Camaro Unveiled

David Rolfe Re:And they wonder why..... (299 comments)

Bashing heads and grabbing loot is what governments do.

-jcr

In fact, it's exactly the reason that we (civilized people) form them. That way, I can spend my life doing something more useful than making sure that I'm the best at bashing heads and grabbing loot.

more than 5 years ago
top

Does Bing Have Google Running Scared?

David Rolfe Re:Uhuh (560 comments)

I had a similar sentiment the last time MS was spinning its wheels looking for traction in Internet search.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=439888&cid=22278050

But let's look at what we get if we use Bing instead of Live... Re-writing that post a little bit we get:

Bing can never be successful as a competitor in search because verbing its product produces absolute nonsense. [...]

Evidence that Bing search will never dominate in mindshare:
"I Binged for my old highschool classmates."
"Just Bing my resume."
"You guys just sit around in your mom's basement Binging for pr0n."

If people are using Bing to google shit, they've lost.

It sounds like they are going to make some progress this time, but I'm still mostly on the outs with this name. For my demographic Bing doesn't associate with anything other than funny sounds and Chandler complaining about the WENUS or Annual Net Usage Statistics.

more than 5 years ago
top

Feds Demand Prison For Guns N' Roses Uploader

David Rolfe Re:Gun Point? (590 comments)

>>>Did Gutenbergs' invention "steal" the scribes' labor?

No. It eliminated the need for scribes. Completely. It stole nothing from the scribes.

Actually, I'm surprised you don't argue it stole their vocation. Otherwise it seems you understand the argument, you just willfully ignore it. The labor pool for hand-copied books was destroyed by the printing press. Scriveners had to do what programmers will have to do, train for a new vocation or find a new way to contract our their services in exchange for compensation. I'm sure there is still some patron desperately seeking a calligraphed book.

Other forms of automation have similarly destroyed the labor pool for the cobbler and the blacksmith. However, one can still buy or commission hand-made boots and swords. Perhaps we'll see artisan software in the same way we see artisan chairs.

(Oh wait, maybe the buzzword for that is saas. Problem solved?!)

more than 5 years ago
top

Feds Demand Prison For Guns N' Roses Uploader

David Rolfe Re:Gun Point? (590 comments)

You might be interested in a similar reply I made to Commodore64_love at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1160895&cid=27196657.

The end of scarcity is exactly what we need to be dealing with now, wrt virtual "property". 'Replication' of physical artifacts is coming whether it's Star Trek-style or The Diamond Age-style and/or some other variations in between, only time will tell. It's pretty far out there, but we're going to see more mundane forms of artifact printing very soon and this whole can of worms that we're fretting about with songs is about to happen with chairs or wallpaper and who-knows what else. For a comparison, look at the "underground" trading of sewing machine software for embroidery and cross-stitch piracy; that's already happening. I mean we have "IP infringement" entering the zeitgeist from all angles, from grannies and woodworkers to song-traders and warezers. The current system has to change, because you can't have a functioning society where everyone is a criminal under the law. That leads directly to the sort of draconian police-states that the so-called American Spirit directly opposes. And further, as I mention in the other comment, you can't enforce rights management when replication of all expression is ubiquitous without insanely invasive methods.

more than 5 years ago
top

Feds Demand Prison For Guns N' Roses Uploader

David Rolfe Re:Gun Point? (590 comments)

>>>What if the world has changed in such a way that intending to "sell" some easily-copied series of ones and zeros is no longer a viable business plan?

I can not imagine such a world. A computer without software is pretty worthless, so there will always be a need for programmers and they deserve to get paid for their labor. [...]

Of course if you know of an alternate way to get software for computers without having to pay the laborers, please share. I'm open to new ideas.

First, so there isn't any straw-man thrashing, of course a worker deserves to get paid for his labor. A programmer is like any other laborer. You agree to a contract, that contract is enforced by the state, you do the work you agree to do and you get paid as agreed to. If you are working without an agreement to get paid, that's a poor decision if payment is what you're seeking!

That said, we're on the cusp of a new era. We are very close to a world of ubiquitous robotic labor and a world without scarcity (robotic resource gathering, digital replication, robotic manufacturing/artifact printing). Advances in technology will reach both of these at some point (though probably not at the same time). As fantastic as it sounds, 'computer programming' is another form of labor that will eventually be automated with technology. Software that writes software only has to be written once, if you will. The process has already begun. The research is already happening. We already have replaced millions of jobs with robots and will surely replace many more. Artificial intelligence in general and genetic programming research specifically has marched on for years. Robots will manufacture other robots; Computers will program themselves or each other. I don't think this prediction is controversial.

Sure we'll get to keep wage slaving for a couple more decades until India and China completely corner the market on programming, but you really need to start coming to terms with the reality of technological advancement.

The current IP-regime simply cannot cope rationally with the changes that are just beginning. I mean, imagine it, how is copyright going to handle an age where kids have media devices in their heads and are vlogging straight from their eyes? Will there be some giant royalties agent monitoring all IP witnessed and licensing it or censoring it out? How far away is this future? (Surely we'll be there before the end of scarcity.) Will any relevant cultural artifacts have reached the public domain? Creation of protected works has skyrocketed and is accelerating, but expiration into the public domain has all but ceased -- if IP laws aren't restructured will we need tamper-proof Rights Management implants to protect the vast expanse of expression monopolies? (That's the reality of the current "copyright by default" 1976 Act. Every cocktail napkin scribble, every email, voicemail, lecture note, every action caught on every recorded cctv and security cam, etc. It's all 'rights managed' for the next 100 years or 1000, because no one really knows when Congress will stop extending terms. Those are your rights that are getting managed by the way -- your 1st Amendment right to expression ends where expression monopolies begin.)

I guess my point is, if technological advancement continues to accelerate 'the future' is going to be here a lot sooner than we realize. We need to start thinking about how our laws, businesses --really, relationships of all kinds-- have to change to accommodate the new reality. Essentially infinite copyright protection on essentially every expression since 1976 is not "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts."

Sibling posts make good points too.

more than 5 years ago
top

Rush Limbaugh Begs Steve Jobs For Bug Fixes

David Rolfe Re:moto (689 comments)

You're lucky to have coffee! Back in my day we built great monuments to Sun-gods at the business end of a whip. Good times.

more than 6 years ago

Submissions

top

David Rolfe David Rolfe writes  |  about 8 years ago

David Rolfe writes "After threads like this one and its forerunners in similarly affected stories, Slashdot editors have agreed to stop accepting kiddie slang in headlines. This move was heralded by the vast, silent majority of Slashdot who don't have time for this sort of childish crap. CmdrTaco was overheard saying, 'I know I'm a [World of Warcraft] addict — like many of you — but I will nip this in the bud before we have headlines containing ZOMGWTFBBQ!!~. This is not Digg and I'd like to keep it that way.'"

Journals

top

David Rolfe David Rolfe writes  |  more than 7 years ago

In reference to http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/31/0623246 I posted over on Bob's site:

Mr. Squidoo said in response to Cringley's article:

I certainly do not think that a 3rd party notice from someone other than the copyright holder are grounds for YouTube to remove my clip. Even a notice from Oregon Public Broadcasting would have to be considered an "alleged infringement" claim from a copyright holder.

What's so great about copyright is there isn't any alleged infringement. It works like this: did you distribute some work? Yes. Are you Oregon Public Broadcasting? No. You are infringing. Now you'll probably argue that your case is an example of Fair Use -- but get this -- Fair Use is an affirmative defense. If you claim Fair Use you are affirming "guilt" (copyright infringement) by making the defense. At which point a judge decides against the four point test if your infringement is Fair Use, or not. With copyright you are essentially* infringing until proven Fair Use, i.e., "guilty" until proven "innocent"!

In short, Fair Use isn't a right, it's a defense. Copyright isn't a right either; it is a limited-time** State-granted monopoly on distribution. For more info, check out 17 USC 107 and also http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

*Since you can't be non-infringing without being sued and winning!

**One day short of forever, is inexplicably constitutional to some Supremes. Extention every time new works are about to reach the Public Domain still counts as "for a limited time"; See Article 1.8.8.

And just now I left this over at Moyer's new blog re:'Open source journalism':

"As long as source materials are kept private and as long as the final product is copyrighted, it is incorrect to call something open source. Critiquing an article or emailing a suggestion is not nearly enough to justify the title of "Open-Source Journalism". It actually has to be open source." --DR (above)

I feel like I'm back on Slashdot right now! You are misunderstanding what "open source journalism" is, or claims to be. The swarm of emails, posts, crossposts, hat-tips, comments and cross references that coalesce across the 'net to form a "story" is the phenomenon described as "open source journalism". In this respect bloggers (Josh Marshall included) are both the journalist and the audience in the same fashion that open source coders are both the developer and the end-user. It's the many eyes and the feedback-loop that produce the refined results. The phrase open-source journalism doesn't describe the (absolutely critical) goals of either the FSF or the Creative Commons, though.

It needs to be said, in direct response to the quotation above that both the CC licenses and the GPL rely on copyright -- so to claim that because something is copyrighted it is not open source is absolutely incorrect. The difference between written journalism and (most commercial) software applications is that writing is distributed as source already. AV is a different story, one that Creative Commons is going to great lengths to address (remix and reuse without the chilling effects of rampant copyright litigation).

I wanted to say "RTFA", as the episode in question and the post go into detail about what "open-source journalism" is (and you can watch it right there on the site :-D).

top

Slashdot to Fix Headlines

David Rolfe David Rolfe writes  |  about 8 years ago The contents of a story I submitted that's sure to be rejected... I am after all abusing the editors' time:

After threads like this one and its forerunners in similarly affected stories, Slashdot editors have agreed to stop accepting kiddie slang in headlines. This move was heralded by the vast, silent majority of Slashdot who don't have time for this sort of childish crap. CmdrTaco was overheard saying, 'I know I'm a [World of Warcraft] addict -- like many of you -- but I will nip this in the bud before we have headlines containing ZOMGWTFBBQ!!~. This is not Digg and I'd like to keep it that way.'

I didn't mean to submit it containing the world heralded, but ... mistakes happen.

top

Posts Worth Reading

David Rolfe David Rolfe writes  |  more than 11 years ago

I've posted many trivial one liners in my time on Slashdot. If you've come to my info page looking for comments that are worth reading I will list the best of them here. If you want to read other things I have written, but are maybe less topical than Slashdot - you might like to visit Shro0m@Everthing2.com.

Here's one I didn't write, but is still worth reading (it's a shame moderation didn't work on this post): Winning the War on Terror. . .

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?