Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Comment Re:Be reasoable (Score 1) 92

And what happens when you go to any website with copyrighted content? You download it, making a copy, adding it to ram, making a copy, adding it to your web cache, making a copy. Yet no one considers any of those unlicensed acts copyright infringement.

If the content in question were kiddie porn, though, a majority would say the user is responsible for the user-agent's behavior. So while you didn't infringe the child pornographer's copyright, you did commit some sort of child pornography offense.

What this tells me, is that users are responsible for the download, but the infringing download has a Fair Use defense.

But that presumes the copy on the server wasn't made via infringement. But the user doesn't know that. So maybe it's Fair Use if the user believes it's Fair Use ("if you didn't want people to download your article, you shouldn't have published it on your web server!"), but infringement if the user believes it's not ("if you didn't want people to download your article, you shouldn't have let pirates put it on their web serv-- oh shit, you've got me!"). Very mens rea-ish.

Comment Re:Am I missing something? (Score 1) 142

I'm obviously missing something major here, because except for the SMS gateway, this sounds like Jabber/XMPP 15 years ago. You can talk that protocol on anything (or everything at once), except have dozens of compatible implementations to choose from instead of just one proprietary one.

And the SMS gateway, while that would have been super-cool back in 2003 before everyone had smartphones, sounds like an archaic requirement in 2016 when everyone has a smartphone that they use to access the Internet.

SMS is borderline obsolete if you have TCP/IP. It sounds like people are saying you have to use an iPhone because it's the only way you can talk to .. people .. who have .. 1990s phones..? I don't get it.

Comment Re: Why even have elections? (Score 1) 420

And if your argument is "I'm not supporting either of them" - if you don't vote for one, you're supporting the other. Not to the degree of voting directly for the other, but you're still supporting them. Because that's the way the US electoral system works.

I could say the nonsense about your vote for your candidate. How would you like it if I said your vote for Clinton supports Trump or Stein? Because by voting against Johnson, it sure looks like that's what you're doing: preventing Johnson from winning, so that we get stuck with whoever else wins instead.

Please don't vote against Johnson. Don't throw your vote away like that, voting on a spoiler. Your vote could have been against the Republicrats and instead you're going to help one of them win again.

(See how condescending that is? Please knock it off.)

Comment Re:Election interference (Score 2) 412

Why nothing about Trump?

The obvious common-sense explanation is that they don't have anything particularly interesting on Trump.

Imagine that you actually had something about Trump that was worse than what he always says in public. (I know, it's hard. But try. Maybe "grab the dick" or something.) So you send the information to Wikileaks, and they just sit on it. Weeks go by, you email Julian, "Hey, what about my leak?" and he doesn't reply.

What would you do?

I think you would leak through another channel. Wikileaks isn't the only game in town when it comes to media, you know. If you're too lazy to upload the torrent yourself, there just might be a few thousand other media organizations that would be willing to take the information.

Since this hasn't happened, I think the least extraordinary and most believable explanation, is that there hasn't been a Trump leak. Are you saying that you have come up with an even more likely explanation, where there has been a Trump leak and a conspiracy between every media outlet in the world, led by Wikileaks, to suppress the information in it?

It's interference when it is being done to influence an election

Ok, fine. But if that's your definition, then even a paid advertisement or giving a speech would be examples of interference. Why is interference considered noteworthy or undesirable? Shouldn't everyone be interfering with the election? Australia has mandatory vote; I think America should have mandatory interference!

Unless that's not what you meant. Maybe you meant that interference implies something unsavory? Oh, but then you don't get to apply it to what Wikileaks did. That's quite a dilemma. Have you considered maybe just stop hating Wikileaks, and being grateful that they've already outed and embarrassed the next president? With Trump destroying the Republicans and Clinton already a lame duck, maybe America can have a real election in 2020. Show me one politically-idealistic person, on either the right or left, who doesn't want that to happen.

Comment Re:One sided [Re:And yet] (Score 1) 412

Actually, I'd very much be curious to see equivalent material stolen from the other side.

So go steal it! Why are people acting so entitled yet unwilling to do the work?

This is like complaining about the arrest of John Wayne Gacy because they haven't arrested Jeffrey Dahmer yet. If you wanna complain about Dahmer, fine, but quit bitching about Gacy's arrest.

WHERE IS YOUR INFORMATION THAT YOU WANT TO LEAK? Supply it. Wikileaks will probably be happy to help you. And if they aren't, guess what: Wikileaks totally and completely lacks the capability to prevent you from leaking it yourself, or getting someone else to help you do it.

Comment Once he got inside the bag, it was over (Score 1) 204

I think it's a lot more interesting that he was granted access to see whatever's inside the bag. That's a much bigger leap, and more invasive than reading the magstrip.

The car has clear glass windows. Everyone in public can see what's inside. But when you went through the opaque plastic (cop's own words), you were crossing the boundary between public and private. Any random passerby (e.g. you or I) can see that the bag exists. A passerby cannot see what's inside the bag. To gain that information, you have to get some kind of special access. Owning the bag is one way, warrants are another, and crime is a third.

But it happened. (And it kind of sounds like maybe the suspect consented, so I forgot: the owner telling/showing you what's in the bag is a fourth way!)

Once a judge has already ruled that he's allowed to see what's inside the bag, take things (such as cards) out of it, etc, then it doesn't seem like a stretch for the same judge to also rule it's ok to recursively look inside the nested objects. "We've already established what kind of woman you are, madam. Now we're just haggling over the price."

(BTW, the question about receipts is hysterical. If I'm going to be suspected of a crime for not having receipts, then damn near everything I own is presumed stolen. I bet the same goes for you too, as well as the cop. Got a reciept for that donut? For your $400 smartphone? For your socks?)

Comment The ethics in "work ethic" (Score 1) 326

With respect, expecting much of a work ethic in a temporary part time job with a nebulous future is a bit misguided.

Actually, you've got the right idea but there's a problem word here: "Ethic."

If the employer is not fully committed, then an ethical employee should not be fully committed, either. You actually are seeing a functional work ethic even in shitty jobs. It's ethical, just also .. maybe regrettable.

I wonder if the jargon term "work ethic" was coined by people who were trying to take ethics out of the discussion, by advocating for an asymmetric relationship. We should stop using that term; it's too loaded.

Comment Re:What a Waste (Score 2) 867

Lobbyists go around the people, to have your representatives work against you.

Bad media goes around your representatives, to have you work against yourself.

Maybe they're the same in that they're your adversary, but they're also pretty different. It's like saying an enemy fighter plane and an enemy tank are the same. Yeah, they're both the enemy's forces, I suppose...

Slashdot Top Deals

Build a system that even a fool can use and only a fool will want to use it.