Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Warship Anyone? (Score 1) 377

Mid 90's. Spent a lovely weekend below the waterline on a frigate updating the ship's maintenance system with a new data picture of its systems. All went wonderfully well and I walked ashore late afternoon on Sunday and flew back to my home city. Fast forward to 4pm Monday and we get a call from the ship at sea saying the maintenance system no longer functioned: get your butt out here and unf*ck it. So, in the car, 3 hours drive to where the ship anchored for the night, RHIB ride out to the ship, up the rope ladder, about 10PM... fix it, you have until 6AM or you are sailing with us (for a week). That, my friends, is great motivation to work fast. To cap it off, there was a small fuel leak in the space outside the computer room: wonderful aroma to deal with. Tried to work out the obscure linkage between existing maintenance jobs and the system description that was causing the issue. Ultimately had to roll the database back to the pre-update state. Off the ship at 6 along with many bags of oil-soaked rags used on the fuel leak. Ship lost a few days of data and a day at sea: captain not happy... and we had to do the whole exercise again later.

Tape for data, $100, Airfare and and accommodation, $600, warship all at sea, priceless.

Not entirely my doing (what is these days) but I was the man that delivered the fun. No names, no pack drill over this.

Comment Re:$100k License (Score 1) 201

If your hotel was inside the Aurelian Wall then there is a flat EUR48 fare from Rome Fiumicino regardless of time. For destinations outside the Aurelian Wall the fare is metered. I hope you weren't additionally fleeced by a trustworthy licenced taxi driver turning on the meter for these fixed fare trips in peak traffic: the timed fare works out much better for them.

Comment Re:60 million times? (Score 1) 186

No, the claim is, "has been illegally viewed more than 60 million times." (Emphasis mine) No mention of geographic scope, but the figure is utterly unsupportable anyway. Even if they knew precisely how many allegedly infringing copies had been made (they don't) there is no way of knowing how many times a movie has been viewed. It could be anything from zero to 60 million views with anything from one to one gajillion allegedly infringing copies in existence.

Comment Re:What I want to know is... (Score 4, Informative) 136

The Voltage Pictures VP of Royalties was interviewed on the radio as I drove home today. He said that Voltage is doing this because a small producer they cannot cannot cross-subsidise from other parts of the business to cover the losses due to infringing copies of their movies (His argument was clearly based on the assumption that every infringing copy is a lost sale). The big players can afford to do this and see the negative press as more costly than the potential increase in revenue. He refused to be drawn on what they would be demanding from the alleged infringers. There were also some poor choices of words, assumption of guilt, and sense that they are the law.

Read (http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/stories/s4212674.htm) or listen (http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/daily/hack_wed_2015_4_8.mp3) to the show.

Comment Re:Just a Moment... (Score 4, Interesting) 136

I am sure that the plaintiff in this case would dearly love to engage in "speculative invoicing" and to do that they need somewhere to send a legal threat with a nice "make it go away for only $2000" clause. The judge has at least considered this, so the plaintiff must pass any correspondence destined for the parties revealed here through the court. That should at least control the extraction of money by threat of legal action with no intent to proceed to actual litigation. My guess is that the plaintiff will try to ID one or two endpoints that look like a business/individual with reasonable sized pockets and try to set a precedent with them.

This decision, and the recent data retention law that ensures these records exist for fishing expeditions, have essentially ensured that VPN providers will do well out of Aussies.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 1) 124

No you are not reading that wrong. Journalists sources have (had) protection in courts under the Evidence Act for a long time, and the definition of journalist was quite broad. The early versions of this bill subverted that protection completely, but a watered down protection of journalists sources was added to secure the major opposition party's support. They deliberately narrowed the scope of "Journalist" to limit the number of warrants that might need to be sought.

Comment Re:Hack for a shitty law (Score 5, Informative) 124

The law tightens the definition of "Journalist" over that in the existing Evidence Act so that this is impractical.

Evidence Act

Journalist means a person who is engaged and active in the publication of news and who may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium.

This law:

(i) a person who is working in a professional capacity as a journalist; or (ii) an employer of such a person;

If you are not being paid to be a journalist or paying someone to be a journalist then you are not a journalist, and warrants are not required, under this law. A subtle and deliberate difference.

Comment Re:What difference does it make (Score 4, Interesting) 124

Making the ISP keep it too:

  1. Makes it reliably available for litigation by big media over copyright infringement and removes the ability of ISP to defend customer privacy with inconvenient legal actions or by simply not holding the information. Hosting privacy protecting proxy/VPN services has essentially be outlawed on Australian soil... or will be as the holes in this legislation become evident and the scope creep continues.
  2. Makes it reliably available for abuse by political parties: want to know who leaked the embarrassing x? Simple warrantless search with no oversight.

Real Programs don't use shared text. Otherwise, how can they use functions for scratch space after they are finished calling them?

Working...