Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment The Democrats are looking at (Score 1) 309

the Republican Clown Cars or recent elections and are working hard to eliminate non-serious candidates who have zero chance.

I wonder how President Lessig would react to a terrorist attack in the US? How would he cope with Russia, China, and the Middle East in general? What were his plans for spending and funding? Did he even give any thought to that?

Did he ever consider that he might be faced with responding to a nuclear attack, and the standard US response to such a thing?

Comment an âoeeye in the skyâ could read my lic (Score 1) 373

Nope. The best orbiting telescopes have a ground resolution in low earth orbit of about 5 cm. That's looking straight down in early morning when the atmosphere is least disturbed. Reading a license plate would require higher resolution and looking through much more atmosphere.

Comment From the article you didn't read (Score 3, Informative) 64

When United does include this code in correspondence, all but the last three characters are replaced with asterisks. The same is true with Unitedâ(TM)s boarding passes. However, the full Mileage Plus number is available if you take the time to decode the barcode on a boarding pass.

Comment Don't like GPLv3? Write your own implementation. (Score 1) 311

So if "[e]ven when there is a permissive license, it's still incredibly difficult for a new file format to gain any traction" then there there would seem to be nothing lost by licensing the reference implementation under the GNU GPLv3 despite your vague claim that the GPL hinders "broad adoption". You say "If the ultimate goal is to promote this file format, this is not the best way of doing it" but you say nothing about what "the best way" is or what constitutes "best".

"FOSS" means free and open source software, software released under a license approved of by both the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative; there are many other such licenses. It's unclear what you mean by "FOSS/GPL" as being somehow distinct from the "GPL" (meaning the GNU General Public License), a term used for decades which requires no qualification. Perhaps you're confused by the term "GNU/Linux" which is the GNU operating system in combination with the Linux kernel (as opposed to, GNU/HURD or GNU/kFreeBSD, to name a couple of examples, which are the GNU OS with the HURD or FreeBSD kernels respectively).

For being moderated as insightful I see a self-contraction, unclear use of confused terminology, and a complaint hinting that something far better should be done without any explanation of what that is.

Comment Copylefted free software is needed (Score 1) 166

Even if the software source code isn't necessary for the emissions testing out of the tailpipe it is necessary for car owners to make the car do what they want. This is an opportunity for the public to get the car that is completely under their control. There's plenty of other fraudulent behavior that is under the control of the car software which can't be fixed except by changing the software (radio emissions and input via car remote controls, for example). Car owners deserve to be able to control their owned objects completely while complying with reasonable laws. Therefore we need strongly copylefted free software to achieve this in order to grant and secure the necessary freedoms for the foreseeable future.

Comment Accountability & prevention: AGPL3 or later (Score 1) 494

We need accountability and prevention. Accountability should come in the form of corporate death penalties (as in the corporation's assets are seized to pay debts and the corporation no longer exists), and prevention in the form of publishing complete corresponding source code to all cars sold in the US as a part of the car. When you buy a car, you should own the car including all software installed on that car. Other countries would be wise to follow suit to protect their citizens and the environment from apparently malevolent multi-year fraudsters who wish to dodge ecological regulations.

The Free Software Foundation was right: all published software must be free. But since this situation highlights how fraud and abuse can be hidden in nonfree software, we can defend ourselves from this with strongly copylefted free software (right now that means AGPL v3 or later). I don't want anyone taking any car in for any work and coming out with nonfree software thus reintroducing this problem. You cannot have safe computer software without software freedom. And a strong copylefted free software license plus multiple freedom-minded contributors who are willing to pursue lawsuits will help defend against proprietary derivatives (as such legal work has done for the Linux kernel). As I said in the recent VW thread on this: I don't care about upstream copyright excuses should VW claim to have built their software on nonfree upstream code. Our individual and collective safety is far too important. This, like virtually everything else we do, is a matter of political will to do the right and just thing.

When people come around to seeing how an increasing dependence on computers (namely, putting computers in everything) means risking our lives, our civil liberties, our health, our freedom to move without being tracked, and more, we can easily justify pushing for more strongly copylefted free software.

Comment Number of lines of code is a distraction. (Score 1) 618

I read the "single line of code" editorial as a distraction away from what matters: accountability and prevention.

Accountability can come in the form of lawsuits from affected car owners and those who can show the subsequent environmental harm caused a problem for them. Letting VW negotiate its own fate is ridiculous and, if the government's action with GM is any guide, unlikely to result in more than a slap of the wrist.

Prevention must also be dealt with, and strongly copylefted free software licenses will help here. Whether this was the result of a mistake (VW's years-long negligence) or planning (VW's years-long fraudulence) is a detail as far as prevention goes because either way VW should be freeing the complete source code to the cars and providing complete specifications for any code it cannot provide so as to allow the easiest possible reverse engineering. Any cost of purchasing code for freeing should be borne by VW.

VW is not in a position to dicker here. I don't buy the excuse of uncooperative upstream providers VW depends on for their code and the public shouldn't either. The stakes (our health) are too high to settle for less than complete corresponding source code under a strong copylefted license so that any published improvements are also free. Keep in mind, this is code car owners should have had from day 1 under a free license so they can fully own their own cars, taking code to experts they trust just like many take their car mechanisms to garages they trust to get fixed. Trusting the market got us where we are now, the market apparently will not grant us the freedom to let us help ourselves and our air-breathing neighbors by fixing the defective VW cars already out there since 2009 (over 480,000 of them). Not buying VW reaches the same conclusion. Not recognizing software freedom for its own sake and the preservation of that protection in copyleft will increasingly become a matter of life and death as we entrust more of our daily functions to software.

Comment Final Rule: Test the Disaster Recovery Plan (Score 2) 68

Story time: A few years ago I was working on a web app for a US intel/LEO agency in northern virginia. The app had started as a demo, then kind of grew. Like a fungus. It was never really designed, much less designed to shut down and restart unexpectedly. There were some other similarly "designed" apps running in the data center.

The data center, being under the flight path for an airport, had a continuity of operations ("coop") plan and hardware. The "UPS" was a big generator with a switch so that it would take over when mains power went down. There was also a system designed to handle hot mirroring of everything and switch all network traffic to the backup center if the main center went down.

A great system which was never tested because what if the test takes the system down for 15 minutes and we thus miss the opportunity to prevent the Next 9/11 and Thousands Die and, worse yet, we have to testify in front of Congress?

So one day the fire marshall came through the building and, as part of his testing, hit the Big Red Switch. The switch designed to detect this and start the generators (and which was reported to cost $15) failed. All the systems went down, hard. The network switch in place to notify the hot backup site and send all the traffic there also failed. And the Vital Systems Protecting Our Nation From the Next 9/11 went down, worldwide.

Don't just have a plan, test it.

p.s. We never were able to determine how much, if any, data was lost....