Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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 Linux Switch (Score 1) 314

I've been putting off my Windows 10 upgrade because, as great as it seemed like the OS was going to be, the spyware and now the uninstalling of programs has completely put me off. I have a spare laptop (Windows Vista, I believe) that I mainly use for Kodi and to share out my external hard drive. I'm now considering installing Linux on it as a test. I'm not sure which distribution to use. Which one would be the best to migrate from Windows for Kodi/network file sharing? Would it allow me to boot the laptop back into Windows (in case I needed to access something from there)? Would it support USB remote controls/keyboards like this one?

If this install succeeds, my main laptop (used for web development, web browsing, document creation with OpenOffice, and light image editing) could be next.

Comment Re:Terminated Based on Accusations? (Score 1) 216

The actual DMCA process (when not abused) isn't so bad:

1) Copyright holder claims that John Doe violated his copyright.
2) Copyright holder takes ISP to court to prove this actually happened.
3a) Copyright holder's case doesn't convince the judge to issue a subpoena. End here.
3b) The judge is convinced and issues a subpoena.
4) The ISP gives the copyright holder the user's information.
5) The copyright holder sues the user.

Overall, the process is relatively fair. The ISP can't be expected to be the judge of whether something is a copyright violation. That's for the courts. There are definitely improvements that can be made like in penalty amounts, but it's a decent process.

The problem here is that RightsCorp and the judge are saying that the process should be:

1) Copyright holder makes a few accusations against a user.
2) ISP kicks user off.

No court involved. No burden of proof. Nothing. Just "X did this wrong" followed by punishment.

Comment Re:Terminated Based on Accusations? (Score 1) 216

Oh, there are plenty of people here that own copyrights to things. Did you ever take a photo with your smartphone? Congrats, you own a copyright! Now if a hundred of us were to claim that RightsCorp violated our copyrights (whether or not they did is immaterial since RightsCorp is claiming that the mere accusation counts), RightsCorp's ISP would have no choice but to kick them offline.

Comment Re:The judge issued a verdict ahead of trial? (Score 2) 216

Does the ISP get to say to them these are the subscribers who's services where suspended without cause these are the ones that left and here is bill for that lost revenue? does the subscriber get to charge them for hook up fees when they move to a new service or damages when their accounts are suspended?

No, because the only penalty in the DMCA levied against the accuser is for falsely stating who you are. So if I claim that I'm Steven Tyler and you violated "my" copyrights by sharing "my" songs, I could get fined. However, if I claim that you violated copyright on songs that I actually do own the copyright to, I won't be fined even if you never even knew such songs existed - much less downloaded/uploaded them.

This means a rights holder could toss DMCA claims against everyone, demand settlement fees, quickly drop the cases where the user is going to fight back (without any penalty to the rights holder), and collect settlements from the rest. Pure profit!

Comment Terminated Based on Accusations? (Score 4, Informative) 216

So the judge is saying that Cox should shut off customers based on repeated allegations? As in, the proof isn't in yet and they've just been accused of something. Why even bother with trials or checking for proof then? Just fire a few dozen DMCA reports against random IP addresses and watch as people get taken offline. No proof required.

If this makes it into precedent/law, how long until many people accuse Rightscorp of copyright violations and take them offline? Or does the "guilty-and-taken-offline-before-proven-innocent" rule only apply if a company is accusing an individual. (To quote Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.")

Comment Re:Nothing to hide (Score 1) 75

You'll get no argument from me that the system is in serious need of changes at many levels to protect people from identity theft. Unfortunately, the credit agencies and credit card companies profit off of identity theft (selling people's data, taking in fees from fraudulent purchases and then writing them off if proven to be fraud, etc). They have powerful lobbying groups that will fight any changes that threaten their business - a category which includes increased consumer protections.

Comment Re:Nothing to hide (Score 1) 75

SSN is, unfortunately, a big deal. With your SSN, date of birth, and name, anyone can open lines of credit in your name. This includes credit cards, loans, etc. I found this out the hard way when someone opened a credit card in my name after somehow obtaining my name, DOB, SSN, and home address. (I never found out how they got this information and never will.)

I was lucky in that the thieves paid for rush delivery of the card and the card was sent out before their address change request (from my address - needed to open the account - to their address) went through. The card arrived at my house and I was able to close the account and freeze my credit to make sure this didn't happen again. Had the card gone to them, though, they would have run it to its limit (which was more than $5,000) and not paid the bill. I would have found out about it when the collection agencies banged on my door for payment and they wouldn't be likely to take "But I didn't open that account or spend that money" as an excuse for not paying "my" debts.

So threatening that you'll reveal someone's SSN is a very big deal - especially if you link it to their name and DOB.

Comment Re:Lucas not having control to do what he wanted (Score 1) 423

And if the whole point of Star Wars is family, then why does Amidala die in Episode 3 for no other reason than "boo hoo, Anakin's crossed to the Dark Side"? She's a strong character up to that point but just decides not to live anymore. If Star Wars was about family, then she would have wanted to care for her new babies - or at least live long enough to make sure they were headed to decent homes. Instead, she just decides to die because that's what Lucas' script said for her to do.

Comment Re:Netflix Should Quit Making Shows (Score 3, Insightful) 166

Some of the shows Netflix has made have been hailed as great programming. I personally can't speak for what I haven't seen, but Daredevil was fantastic. I highly doubt that any network TV station could have produced anything of that quality. It would have degenerated into Criminal Of The Week stories, forced pre-commercial cliffhangers, post-commercial recaps, and a story that didn't flow as nicely from episode to episode. Only HBO might have been been able to do Daredevil as well as Netflix did. (Which isn't a coincidence as Netflix wants to have more original programming like HBO does.)

On the comedy/sitcom end, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt was funny in a way that I wish more sitcoms were. Again, no commercials meant they didn't need to pause the episode's story to show ads.

This doesn't mean a Netflix produced Lost In Space is guaranteed to be fantastic, but - based on their past successes - it means there's a good chance that it'll be good.

Comment Re:You did Something vs. You didn't do Anything (Score 2) 206

Just choose the right position to hide context from the photo, the right angle for emotional effect or simply ask people to do something or rearrange some objects.

Obligatory Calvin and Hobbes:

Also, I'm guilty of this. Taking photos of my boys and carefully making sure the mess of toys isn't in the frame so that our house doesn't look like the mess it is.

Comment Re:You did Something vs. You didn't do Anything (Score 1) 206

One only needs to look at the US presidential election to see this in progress. Candidates spout "we'll do something" promises regardless of whether that will actually work (or whether it would even be legal to do) and those candidates' poll numbers increase. They are seen as men of action and people on the other side are criticized for "not doing anything" even if they are doing something, but their action is more measured. Big bold actions get people's attention regardless of effectiveness.

Comment Re:Try startups, not real companies (Score 5, Informative) 242

Even in places that aren't crazy (Silicon Valley) and full of kids in startups, you have the expectation of working the occasional "crunch time" or odd hours. That's even something we were told to expect in college (in the midwest).

Growing up, I saw my father work 10 hour days, come home with a stack of work, dial into the office, and work another 4 hours. Then, on the weekends, he'd bring more work home and work hours upon hours. He wasn't getting paid more but was doing a lot of off-hours work on a daily basis. I asked him why he did all this work and his reply was that he had to because his boss expected this level of output from him.

When I entered the workforce, I made it clear that this wouldn't be me. When I left work, work got left behind. I didn't mind the occasional "log in from home because a system went down" or "work a couple extra hours to push a project over the line" but this was to be the exception rather than the rule. When I was home, that was family time, not do-more-work-without-extra-payment time.

My father has since retired and has said that all of that extra time he worked was time wasted because he could have been spending time with his family instead of getting a few more pages entered into the computer.

"Help Mr. Wizard!" -- Tennessee Tuxedo