×

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

Ouya Dropping 'Free-to-Play' Requirement

Adrian Lopez Re:Dumb move... (107 comments)

They are a barely alive gaming platform and they are starting remove features they were built upon...

On the other hand, requiring developers to offer "free to play" versions of their games makes the platform less attractive to them, and a console is nothing without developers.

about a month ago
top

AT&T Exec Calls Netflix "Arrogant" For Expecting Net Neutrality

Adrian Lopez Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (466 comments)

Netflix wants "sufficient access to [ISP networks] without charge", but that doesn't have to mean peering. Netflix doesn't want ISPs neglecting indirect routes to content in order to push services like Netflix into connecting directly to their networks.

about a month ago
top

AT&T Exec Calls Netflix "Arrogant" For Expecting Net Neutrality

Adrian Lopez Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (466 comments)

Nope. Go peddle your bullshit somewhere else. I ain't buying.

about a month ago
top

AT&T Exec Calls Netflix "Arrogant" For Expecting Net Neutrality

Adrian Lopez Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (466 comments)

You and AT&T are employing what is known as a "straw man argument". Netflix doesn't want free peering arrangements. Stop intentionally misrepresenting their position.

about a month ago
top

AT&T Exec Calls Netflix "Arrogant" For Expecting Net Neutrality

Adrian Lopez Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (466 comments)

But instead of buying more bandwidth, or purchasing from additional upstream providers, they yell about other people's networks not having enough andwidth.

Wrong. Netflix is "yelling" about being charged extra for bandwidth that Netflix's own provider has already negotiated with AT&T.

about a month ago
top

AT&T Exec Calls Netflix "Arrogant" For Expecting Net Neutrality

Adrian Lopez Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (466 comments)

In a typical peering arrangement, both sides of the link pass roughly equal amounts of data to the other side. Netflix, however, gives Cogent so much data that the peering links are lop sided.

That's something for the peers to negotiate between themselves. AT&T can negotiate a better peering arrangement with Cogent, which would then be free to raise prices on Netflix. That's the way to do it without violating neutrality.

about a month ago
top

AT&T Exec Calls Netflix "Arrogant" For Expecting Net Neutrality

Adrian Lopez Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (466 comments)

If net neutrality is forcing ISPs to accept peering arrangements with anyone, then take me off the list of supporters.

Net neutrality does not force ISPs to accept peering arrangements of any kind, nor is Netflix demanding ISPs be forced to do so. Netflix wants traffic that goes through an in-between ISP to be treated the same as all other such traffic. They don't want to pay a premium to not have their traffic artificially crippled by AT&T once it enters their network.

But, of course, you already knew that. Next time, try your weak arguments on a less educated crowd.

about a month ago
top

Lies Programmers Tell Themselves

Adrian Lopez Re:Lame (452 comments)

"Something must be wrong with this library (that is used successfully by everyone else)"

There's always a first person to report a bug, and some bugs are only apparent under specific circumstances. Always assume your code is to blame, but don't mistake that to mean that "nothing can be wrong with this library, because others have been using it successfully".

about a month ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Does Your Employer Perform HTTPS MITM Attacks On Employees?

Adrian Lopez Re:Not MITM (572 comments)

The submission suggests that the corporation is exploiting some security vulnerability, when really it is just using trust in a completely appropriate* way.

The problem is not that there doesn't exist a trust relationship between the client device and the proxy (there does), but that the original trust relationship between the client and the website is being violated by the the proxy's interception and modification of the website's SSL certificate. If a malicious third party somehow struck a deal with a trusted certificate authority and used it to monitor targeted communications (remember, trusted != trustworthy), we wouldn't call it anything other than a Man in the Middle attack.

about a month and a half ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Does Your Employer Perform HTTPS MITM Attacks On Employees?

Adrian Lopez Re:Not MITM (572 comments)

"If you are on a company computer, prove they don't have a keylogger on it?"

Prove that your personal computer doesn't have one. Unless you've personally reviewed all the code and circuitry that could possibly be used for such a purpose, I shall not believe you.

"When the end cert is presented by an unknown party, it's a MITM."

It's a MITM when it's done by any party, known or unknown. If the data is being decrypted and captured as it flows between the endpoints of an HTTPS connection, the party doing so is a Man in the Middle.

"When it's done by the computer owner, under explicit ToS you agreed to, what's the complaint?"

Whatever the complaint, it involves the fact that "agree to" and "agree with" are different concepts.

about a month and a half ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Does Your Employer Perform HTTPS MITM Attacks On Employees?

Adrian Lopez Re: Not MITM (572 comments)

"Trusted by the people who own the computer."

As opposed to those whose use it. Those whose information is being encrypted to supposedly protect against interception.

about a month and a half ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Does Your Employer Perform HTTPS MITM Attacks On Employees?

Adrian Lopez Re:Not MITM (572 comments)

"and most proxys have ssl passthrough for banking and health..."

Except, of course, for websites not recognized by the proxy as containing "banking" or "health" information.

about a month and a half ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Does Your Employer Perform HTTPS MITM Attacks On Employees?

Adrian Lopez Re:Not MITM (572 comments)

A trusted proxy is a "Man in the Middle", so I presume your objection is to the word "attack"? Whatever you choose to call it, the fact is that SSL certificates are transparently being rewritten in order to capture data each website's SSL certificate was meant to stop from being captured. "Trusted proxy" is just a friendly euphemism which attempts to justify what may or may not be a legitimate practice, depending on what's being collected and whether or not the users are, in fact, specifically aware of it.

about a month and a half ago
top

Woman Attacked In San Francisco Bar For Wearing Google Glass

Adrian Lopez Re:not in use? (921 comments)

Sadly, the law in most areas says no expectation of privacy in public places which includes at a bar.

Why "sadly"? You're out where anyone can see you. This includes artificial eyes like camera lenses and sensors. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" doctrine is a strength, not a fault.

about 2 months ago
top

German Court Forbids Resale of Valve Games

Adrian Lopez Re:Not quite Jesper. (261 comments)

"Yes and no. I am pretty sure the only reason BD/DVD/CDs can be transferred us because local law grants consumers that right."

It's the other way around: I can transfer BD/DVD/CDs because local law does not prevent me from doing so.

"The fact that physical media and manuals accompany the product is not sufficient to grant you the right to transfer the license UNLESS laws specifically grant you that right."

Again, it's the other way around: Attaching a license to a product does not in any way restrict my actions unless the law recognizes that license as valid and binding.

about 2 months ago
top

German Court Forbids Resale of Valve Games

Adrian Lopez Re:Bad ruling (261 comments)

"It is buying a non-transferable digital copy, subject to the terms of the license."

That's your interpretation. Whether or not the courts agree is a different matter.

about 2 months ago
top

German Court Forbids Resale of Valve Games

Adrian Lopez Re:Bad ruling (261 comments)

In this sense Valve does not engage in "fraudulent advertising" because it is well understood that they sell licenses, not complete copyrights for software products. Or in other words: You buy a right to use the software in a limited way, you do not buy the complete copyright and full intellectual property. And giving your license to someone is really noting more than handing them proof that you are the rightful user of said license. The license itself is not transferred.

You are operating under the false assumption that buying software means either buying a license to the software or buying the right to make copies and derivatives of that software. There is actually a third choice: buying copies of the software. When you buy a disc for a game console you are free to play, lend, and resell it without permission (see the "first sale doctrine"). You are buying a copy, and the right to use that copy is implied; it requires no explicit license.

So... is buying a game on Steam like paying for a license, or is it more like buying a copy? Valve wants us to think it's a license, but it sure does feel a lot like purchasing a copy at the point of sale.

about 2 months ago
top

DOJ Announces New Methods For Reporting National Security Requests

Adrian Lopez Re:First amendment (117 comments)

... fire in a crowded theater and all that. That's not just an expression, it was actually used by a justice in a Supreme Court ruling.

And a very bad ruling, at that. Find out why.

about 3 months ago
top

DOJ Announces New Methods For Reporting National Security Requests

Adrian Lopez Re:First amendment (117 comments)

This has baffled me. I know you can be held accountable for yelling fire in a crowded theater. But even then, the act of yelling fire in a crowded theater is not illegal itself. Just the deaths as a result of yelling fire can be attributed to the yeller.

Anytime someone mentions fire in a crowded theater, I think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

"Fire, fire, fire, fire. Now you’ve heard it. Not shouted in a crowded theatre, admittedly, as I seem now to have shouted it in the Hogwarts dining hall. But the point is made. Everyone knows the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who, when asked for an actual example of when it would be proper to limit speech or define it as an action, gave that of shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre.

It’s very often forgotten what he was doing in that case was sending to prison a group of Yiddish speaking socialists, whose literature was printed in a language most Americans couldn’t read, opposing Mr. Wilson’s participation in the First World War, and the dragging of the United States into that sanguinary conflict, which the Yiddish speaking socialists had fled from Russia to escape. In fact it could be just as plausible argued that the Yiddish speaking socialists who were jailed by the excellent and greatly over-praised Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes were the real fire fighters, were the ones shouting fire when there really was a fire in a very crowded theatre indeed."

People offer it as an example of the limits of free speech, all the while completely unaware of the saying's origin.

about 3 months ago
top

Man Jailed For Refusing To Reveal USB Password

Adrian Lopez Re:Cry me a fucking river... (374 comments)

They also accounted for warranted searches. It's not self-incrimination to surrender your shed keys when you've got a naked co-ed chained inside.

A key is a thing I have, not a thing I know. That may be enough to make the difference. Actual knowledge of the co-ed's presence can also make the difference.

about 3 months ago

Submissions

top

Senator Wyden Promises to Read Out Names of PROTEC

Adrian Lopez Adrian Lopez writes  |  more than 2 years ago

Adrian Lopez writes "As the US Senate prepares to vote on the so-called PROTECT IP Act, Senator Ron Wyden has reiterated his opposition to the bill and has promised to actually use his allotted time to filibuster on the bill if he has to. Wyden is promising to read the names of people who signed petitions against PROTECT IP. So if you'd like your name to go into the official record of the US Senate as being against PIPA, here's your chance... You can sign at that link."
Link to Original Source
top

House Judiciary Committee SOPA Hearings Stacked 5

Adrian Lopez Adrian Lopez writes  |  more than 2 years ago

Adrian Lopez writes "Techdirt reports that 'apparently, the folks behind SOPA are really scared to hear from the opposition. We all expected that the Judiciary Committee hearings wouldn't be a fair fight. In Congress, they rarely are fair fights. But most people expected the typical "three in favor, one against" weighted hearings. That's already childish, but it seems that the Judiciary Committee has decided to take the ridiculousness to new heights. We'd already mentioned last week that the Committee had rejected the request of NetCoalition to take part in the hearings. At the time, we'd heard that the hearings were going to be stacked four-to-one in favor of SOPA. However, the latest report coming out of the Committee is that they're so afraid to actually hear about the real opposition that they've lined up five pro-SOPA speakers and only one "against."'

Demand Progress is running an online petition against such lopsided representation."

Link to Original Source
top

Homeland Security Seizes Mooo.com, Won't Admit It

Adrian Lopez Adrian Lopez writes  |  more than 3 years ago

Adrian Lopez (2615) writes "According to Techdirt: "Over the weekend, we started getting a bunch of reports from folks claiming that the dynamic DNS service afraid.org had been seized in the latest DHS/ICE domain seizures, and that all of the sites associated with afraid.org had been replaced with a notice that they had been seized over child porn claims. The main site involved was mooo.com. If you're unfamiliar with the way these dynamic DNS services work, they basically let you put a permanent URL, often using a subdomain like putsomesubdomainhere.mooo.com, and then you point it at whatever machine is actually hosting your content. For some folks and some projects, it's easier than getting your own full URL. But, of course, as a service, it can point to just about any kind of content. Remember, afraid isn't hosting any of this stuff. It's basically just acting as a directory."

When they asked the Department of Homeland Security about it, they got a non-responsive reply: "I sent off a quick email to a press contact at Homeland Security, asking a simple question: did Homeland Security seize — and then unseize — the mooo.com domain? It seemed like a simple yes or no question, and given that Homeland Security is a part of the Obama administration, which has promised the utmost transparency, I figured the least it could do was provide that simple answer. Instead, the response I got was: 'I need to refer you to DOJ for a response to your question.'""

Link to Original Source
top

Internet Blacklist Back in Congress

Adrian Lopez Adrian Lopez writes  |  more than 3 years ago

Adrian Lopez (2615) writes "A bill giving the government the power to shut down Web sites that host materials that infringe copyright is making its way quietly through the lame-duck session of Congress, raising the ire of free-speech groups and prompting a group of academics to lobby against the effort.

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced in Congress this fall by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). It would grant the federal government the power to block access to any Web domain that is found to host copyrighted material without permission.

Opponents note that the powers given the government under the bill are very broad. Because the bill targets domain names and not specific materials, an entire Web site can be shut down. So for example, if the US determines that there are copyright-infringing materials on YouTube, it could theoretically block access to all of YouTube, whether or not particular material being accessed infringes copyright."

Link to Original Source
top

Internet Blacklist Bill Up for Vote on Thursday

Adrian Lopez Adrian Lopez writes  |  more than 3 years ago

Adrian Lopez (2615) writes "The Internet blacklist bill known as COICA is up for vote on Thursday, with the first vote to be conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senators for California, Vermont, Wisconsin, New York, Minnesota, and Illinois will be the key votes in deciding whether COICA passes. Residents of those states are encouraged to contact their senators and let them know they oppose the bill.

COICA would let the US Attorney General create a blacklist of domains that every American ISP would be required to block. Wikileaks, YouTube, and others are all at risk. Human rights advocates, constitutional law experts, and the people who invented the Internet have all spoken out against this bill — but some of the most powerful industries in the country are demanding that Congress rush it through. The music industry is even having all of their employees call Congress to pose as citizens in support of the bill.

This bill is as bad for Americans and bad for the Internet. The decision to take down US and foreign websites shouldn't rest with the US Attorney General, and it should never be as easy as adding a website to a central list.

Demand Progress has a petition online which residents of the above and other US states are encouraged to sign."
top

Help prevent the creation of an Internet blacklist

Adrian Lopez Adrian Lopez writes  |  more than 3 years ago

Adrian Lopez (2615) writes "The Senate is considering a bill that would create an online blacklist of Internet domain names. Hollywood has been stumping hard for this bill and unless we speak up, it could sail through Congress in the next couple weeks. Click here to sign Demand Progress' petition. GamePolitics also makes an important suggestion: "Senator Patrick Leahy is up for re-election, so if you don't like this law and want him to listen, now is probably the best time to talk to him about it — leahy.senate.gov or www.leahyforvermont.com. If he won't listen, talk to his opponent, Len Britton at www.lenbritton.com."

See the EFF's COICA page for more information, and let's give this issue a good Slashdotting!"
top

McCain Introduces Bill to Block Net Neutrality

Adrian Lopez Adrian Lopez writes  |  more than 4 years ago

Adrian Lopez (2615) writes "PC World reports that US Senator John McCain has recently introduced legislation that "would keep the FCC from enacting rules prohibiting broadband providers from selectively blocking or slowing Internet content and applications."

"McCain, an Arizona Republican, called the proposed net neutrality rules a 'government takeover' of the Internet that will stifle innovation and depress an 'already anemic' job market in the U.S. McCain was the Republican challenger to President Barack Obama in the 2008 election, and Obama has said net neutrality rules are among his top tech priorities.""

Link to Original Source
top

Vulnerability Found in Microsoft's Firefox Plugin

Adrian Lopez Adrian Lopez writes  |  more than 4 years ago

Adrian Lopez (2615) writes "PC World reports that "one of the 13 security bulletins Microsoft released Tuesday affects not only Internet Explorer (IE), but also Firefox, thanks to a Microsoft-made plug-in pushed to Firefox users eight months ago in an update delivered via Windows Update."

The plugin in question — The .NET Framework Assistant — and its security implications for Firefox users were discussed on Slashdot several months ago. It would seem that people's worst fears have come true."

Link to Original Source
top

Eolas once again suing over embedded applications

Adrian Lopez Adrian Lopez writes  |  more than 4 years ago

Adrian Lopez (2615) writes "PC World reports that 'technology research company Eolas Technolgies, which won a US$520.6 million patent infringement case against Microsoft in 2003, has filed a new patent lawsuit against 22 companies including Adobe Systems, Google, Yahoo, Apple, eBay and Amazon.com.

Eolas' lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, claims the tech vendors and other companies have violated two Eolas patents, one for allowing embedded applications in Web browsers, and the second a continuation of the first patent, allowing Web sites to add embedded applications through the use of plug-ins and AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript and XML).'

Imagine a Web without AJAX or embedded applications and ask yourself whether the claim that patents do not stifle innovation is at all sustainable."

Link to Original Source
top

Hollywood's Victory Over TPB May Be Short Lived

Adrian Lopez Adrian Lopez writes  |  about 5 years ago

Adrian Lopez (2615) writes "According to PC World: "Hollywood may have won a battle, but the war against piracy is far from over. Unauthorized file sharing will continue (and likely intensify), if not through The Pirate Bay, then through dozens of other near identical swashbuckling Web sites. ... What Hollywood needs to remember is sites like The Pirate Bay are like weeds. When you try to kill one, they grow back even stronger. In this case, The Pirate Bay already moved most of its servers to the Netherlands, a move that could keep the site running even if The Pirate Bay loses its appeal.""
top

Neutrality Opponent Calls Google a Bandwidth Hog

Adrian Lopez Adrian Lopez writes  |  more than 5 years ago

Adrian Lopez writes "According to PC World, an analyst with ties to the telecom industry — in a baseless attack on the concept of Net Neutrality — has accused Google Inc. of being a bandwidth hog:

"Internet connections could be more affordable for everyone, if Google paid its fair share of the Internet's cost," wrote Cleland in the report. "It is ironic that Google, the largest user of Internet capacity pays the least relatively to fund the Internet's cost; it is even more ironic that the company poised to profit more than any other from more broadband deployment, expects the American taxpayer to pick up its skyrocketing bandwidth tab."

Says Google:

"Not surprisingly, in his zeal to score points in the Net neutrality debate, [Cleland] made significant methodological and factual errors that undermine his report's conclusions," wrote Whitt, calling Cleland's cost estimates "overblown."

"
top

Nintendo Cracks Down on Copying Devices

Adrian Lopez Adrian Lopez writes  |  more than 6 years ago

Adrian Lopez writes "Nintendo is cracking down on mod chips and copying devices with the help of the Hong Kong government:

"The Hong Kong High Court has intervened, at Nintendo's request, to help stop a global distribution operation involving game copying devices and modification chips that violate the copyrights and trademarks of Nintendo DS and Wii.

On Oct. 8th, the court ordered the raid of Supreme Factory Limited facilities, through which Nintendo representatives seized more than 10,000 game copying devices and mod chips over the course of three days. The devices seized are used to copy and play Nintendo DS games offered unlawfully over the Internet, and the mod chips allow the play of pirated Wii discs or illegal copies of downloaded Nintendo games.""

Journals

Adrian Lopez has no journal entries.

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...