Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Why is it... (Score 1) 257

Both do, but the difference is that private corporations have no direct authority over you.

Indirect authority is even worse because you never know when it comes at you. At least the government is more or less limited by the constitution and also predictable, a corporation is only limited by what the execs think they can get away with.

Companies are limited by the law just like any other citizen. By stopping Google from taking pictures in public how are you not selectively interfering with their first amendment rights? What about the precedent you set by doing that?

Comment Re:well, duh... (Score 3, Informative) 157

This information alone doesnt indicate how PCI compliant this solution was. To be PCI compliant every box that stores or *transmits* card data is in scope, including any routers/switches/firewalls that data hits. Presumably you also had a source to the card number data, and that sounds like an area of particular difficulty to secure. Any application that allows card data to be captured (even if not stored) should go through PA-DSS (payment application) compliance testing.

Google

Submission + - Google OS Announced 12

shystershep writes: "Rumors have been floating around for years that Google was planning an OS to compete with Window. As of Tuesday night, it is official: "So today, we're announcing a new project that's a natural extension of Google Chrome — the Google Chrome Operating System. It's our attempt to re-think what operating systems should be. Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks. Later this year we will open-source its code, and netbooks running Google Chrome OS will be available for consumers in the second half of 2010." It is separate from the Android mobile OS, will run on both x86 and ARM processors, and is aimed primarily at web use. Other than that, details are scarce."

Comment In the shower (Score 3, Insightful) 508

No seriously. I've had some real moments of epiphany whilst mulling over problems from the day before. Sometimes its only when you're away from your keyboard that you start looking at the bigger picture rather than the minutiae of individual classes/methods

Comment Re:Start a petition to make linking legal again (Score 1) 1870

Seemed like a great idea, until I read this:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=49&pageRank=4&language=EN
It cannot, however, override decisions taken by competent authorities within Member States. As the European Parliament is not a judicial authority, it can neither pass judgement on, nor revoke decisions taken by, the Courts of law in Member States. Petitions seeking such courses of action are inadmissible.

I'm definately wanting to get involved though if someone can find a good approach.

Comment Re:That just made my day.... (Score 2, Insightful) 347

I fully agree that taking the servers down would be a futile act, but in no way would losing this case be better for society. If TPB win this case then it could bring about a sea change in how copyright infringement cases are brought to trial. Further it could be the first step in a loong overdue reform of copyright law. At the VERY least it would force the big media distributors to reassess their methods of getting digital content out to consumers.

TPB has had around 25million+ peers connected through its trackers. And thats just one of the tracker sites. Shooting from the hip its easy to guess that at any given time there are 50,000,000 or more people downloading illegal torrents. You cant just expect to take a couple of guys to court to change the behaviour of ~50 million people. The media companies have got themselves into this mess with ridiculous DRM schemes, overpriced media and poor quality products. Its time for a change.

Comment Re:Google? (Score 1) 272

It would be interesting to see what happened if a few people complained about this page (warning. Potentially NSFW):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Radiant-Identities-Elizabeth-Beverley/dp/0893816493/ref=pd_sim_b_2_img

The IWF seems to be targetting non-commercial sites such as Wikipedia and archive.org. If they want to seem honest and unbiased then they should also examine the content on commercial sites.

Slashdot Top Deals

NOWPRINT. NOWPRINT. Clemclone, back to the shadows again. - The Firesign Theater

Working...