Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So good that the proxy battle is over (Score 1) 47

by Solandri (#48440619) Attached to: Judge Approves $450M Settlement For Apple's Ebook Price Fixing

Sounds like it. Apple and 5 publishers tried to raise the price of new "e-books from the $9.99 price that Amazon had made standard".

So why does Amazon get to set the price, and not Apple or the publishers?

This is so simple I'm amazed you got voted up. Fundamental market mechanics is that sellers try to raise the price, buyers try to lower the price. Everything from someone haggling over an item at a flea market to a multi-billion dollar corporate buyout operates this way. Both buyer and seller are acting in their own interests. However, the counterbalance to sellers having the power to raise the price is that if they raise it too much, buyers can go to a different seller to get the same or similar item. That natural balance between sellers trying to get as high a price as they can without driving buyers to competitors is what sets the market price.

Apple and the publishers were sellers who tried to raise the price. If they'd arrived at that price individually, then there's no problem. But they colluded to set it at that price, which is absolutely illegal since it breaks this fundamental market mechanic.

Amazon was a seller who tried to lower the price. That's not a problem since it benefits the buyer. It's just like a store deciding to hold a sale. (There's an anti-trust argument that Amazon shouldn't be selling ebooks at a loss, using profits from other markets to undercut competitors in the ebook market. But that wasn't the focus of this particular case, and its disingenuous to try to argue Apple and the publishers aren't guilty because of this. Both can be illegal. If Amazon's ebook pricing is driving competitors to bankruptcy, then that's a separate issue that needs to be decided in a separate case.)

+ - What Does The NSA Think Of Cryptographers? ->

Submitted by mikejuk
mikejuk (1801200) writes "A recently declassified NSA house magazine, CryptoLog, reveals some interesting attitudes between the redactions. What is the NSA take on cryptography?
The article of interest is a report of a trip to the 1992 EuroCrypt conference by an NSA cryptographer whose name is redacted.We all get a little bored having to sit though presentations that are off topic, boring or even down right silly but we generally don't write our opinions down. In this case the criticisms are cutting and they reveal a lot about the attitude of the NSA cryptographers. You need to keep in mind as you read that this is intended for the NSA crypto community and as such the writer would have felt at home with what was being written.
Take for example:
Three of the last four sessions were of no value whatever, and indeed there was almost nothing at Eurocrypt to interest us (this is good news!). The scholarship was actually extremely good; it’s just that the directions which external cryptologic researchers have taken are remarkably far from our own lines of interest.
It seems that back in 1992 academic cryptographers were working on things that the NSA didn't consider of any importance. Could things be the same now?
The gulf between the two camps couldn't be better expressed than:
The conference again offered an interesting view into the thought processes of the world’s leading “cryptologists.” It is indeed remarkable how far the Agency has strayed from the True Path.
The ironic comment is clearly suggesting that the NSA is on the "true path" whatever that might be.
Clearly the gap between the NSA and the academic crypto community is probably as wide today with the different approaches to the problem being driven by what each wants to achieve. It is worth reading the rest of the article."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here (Score 1) 234

by AK Marc (#48438689) Attached to: Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant

Learn how the Swedish legal system works, and you'll understand why: charges cannot be formally filed UNTIL he is given the interview for which the extradition request was filed.

It was described as the only time in history where Sweden knew exactly where someone wanted for an interview was extradited, rather than interviewed. Also, he was interviewed. Then let go, only to be re-interviewed, of they require an interview before charges, and he's been interviewed already, why do they need to do it again?

Comment: Re:Sounds reasonable (Score 1) 234

by AK Marc (#48438651) Attached to: Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant

The US has not made any charges against him, and they have not requested his extradition from any country.

Right. The US refuses to lay "official" charges because those come with responsibilities. The EFF could start petitioning on his behalf. Demands could be made for a speedy and open trial, and other things the US doesn't want.

It would be silly for Sweden to promise this.

It would be perfectly sane to do so. It would be a statement that he'd be held for the "crimes" he is of interest for, and any charges from anywhere else would not be considered. It's not unheard of for countries to do so. Perhaps a promise that he'll be deported to Australia at the end of the proceedings for the pending Swedish charges, regardless of any intervening actions from any other governments.

Reasonable, and not unheard of.

Comment: Re:Sounds reasonable (Score 1) 234

by AK Marc (#48438627) Attached to: Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant
Nope, the only thing standing between him and the US is the UK. It's standard practice to "invade" embassies. The only requirement is that you give sufficient warning (so that they can evacuate official personnel). As Assange isn't an official attache, he'd be arrestable the moment the embassy recognition from the UK ran out.

That's been done before. Argentina closed the UK embassy after the UK invaded the Malvinas.

Comment: Re:Sounds reasonable (Score 1) 234

by AK Marc (#48438609) Attached to: Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant

Sweden does not have a consent requirement.

Consent was given. It was just conditional. Lying to meet those requirements is perfectly legal in the US, and not in Sweden. That's why there is such a misunderstanding. What he did would have been 100% legal in the US. But he wasn't in the US, but the Slashdotters have trouble separating out jurisdiction, and speak as if the US should force the world to live under US law.

Comment: Re:Sounds reasonable (Score 1) 234

by AK Marc (#48438597) Attached to: Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant

Apply Occam's razor (gently).

Yes, lets. Sweden is, for the first time ever, refusing to interview a suspect abroad at their current location. So either they find something exceptional about him, or it was just a coincidence. The most simple answer is that there's something exceptional about him, and US involvement, or Swedish politics seem the most likely culprits. When asked for confirmation either way, the Swedes refuse to comment or clarify. If it were a simple matter, they'd have no reason not to. So the most simple explanation is the more complex one, as the simple one fails all basic logic.

Comment: Re:Sounds reasonable (Score 1) 234

by AK Marc (#48438567) Attached to: Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant

Many here are trashing Assange because they're establishment shills, not because they genuinely care that he didn't wear a condom in an uber-feminist country.

I can't tell with the trolls if they are lying, or if they truly think themselves experts in events when they have the most basic facts wrong.

He committed what the conservative media calls "rape" by committing fraud for sex. He lied for personal gain. That's fraud. Fraud to obtain sex in Sweden is fraud. He is accused of fraud, no more. Consent was given conditionally. He violated that condition. Thus the sex was (At the time) unconsented. Strictly, that can be called rape. But because there was tentative consent, just not informed consent, it's not "rape", just a sexual misconduct without a legal analogue in the US, as lying for sex is called "sex", and lying for personal gain is a good thing.

Comment: Re:Sounds reasonable (Score 1) 234

by AK Marc (#48438545) Attached to: Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant
The US has abused that tactic enough they England makes the US follow at least a few of the laws. Part of an extradition hearing is essentially trying the case and seeing if it has merits. If the US doesn't prove the merits of the case, then extradition should be blocked. But allowing a CIA kidnapping from Sweden has no such legal requirements. It was presumed a non-extradition extraction would take place. Perhaps a deportation to Australia with a stop in NYC (not necessarily the most direct route, but not an insane one), and in NYC he misses his plane.

The conspiracy theorists point out this is the first time in history Sweden knew the location of the suspect and refused to interview them at that location. Until Sweden can explain the uniqueness of this situation, it seems there must be some hidden agenda. If the agenda wasn't hidden, it would follow the previous times where interviews were conducted over the phone, video, or in person with Swedish officials who traveled abroad. Assange was never "in hiding". That was McAfee, who was at unknown/undisclosed locations. Assange gave Sweden his number, and they never rang, then complained that he didn't contact them.

Comment: Re:I bet Infosys and Tata are dancing in the stree (Score 1) 172

Do you ever wonder if your lack of critical thinking skills has led you to internalize Republican nonsense?

Even a whiff of critical thinking skills would allow anyone to see that Obama's purely political stunt is the only nonsense in question. If he gave a crap about the illegal immigrants he wants to "bring out of the shadows," he'd have wave the same magic wand months ago, or years ago. But he knew that it would wreck his party's chances of hanging onto legislative power. But - to his shock, no doubt - his party got completely spanked in the election. So he's done what he just did entirely to poison the well for the upcoming election. That is all.

"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill