Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Or (Score 1) 248 248

You wouldn't, and that's the problem I have with most of the "go back to the good old days!" posts. That only works if the cost of hosting the site is cheap enough to fall in to a person's "hobby-level expenditure". Anything even remotely popular is going to cost orders of magnitude more than that; that requires either direct payment, corporate ownership, or corporate sponsorship - the most common form of which is advertising.

Comment: Re:Try reading the article (Score 2) 154 154

I don't know the exact details, but remember that both of those things (super-injunctions and ASBOs) are only possible because of Acts of Parliament making them possible. Parliament writes the laws (proposed by an MP/group of MPs, voted on by the Commons, if passed then voted on by the Lords, optional back and forth if the Lords reject it and amendments are made, finally either passed or canned), the courts enforce them.

Also, super-injunctions do more than your example; they prevent absolutely anyone from discussing the injunction, including the fact that the injunction exists.

ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) are meant to deal with people who are being a nuisance, but not technically breaking a specific law, or breaking a minor one repeatedly in such a way as to cause a nuisance. E.g. someone may be regularly getting drunk, shouting at passersby and pissing in the street. Nothing they can be locked up for necessarily, but you don't want them doing it either and causing distress, so you have the option of giving them an ASBO preventing them from, say, being drunk in public. If they breach the ASBO, that potentially carries a jail term. In practice however there is a perception in some quarters that they're handed out like candy, sometimes for things that people can't realistically be expected to comply with (you can't expect an alcoholic to be sober in public - they need help, not an ABSO, etc) and poorly enforced (the prisons are too full to jail every petty ASBO-breaker).

Comment: Re:Won't happen (Score 3, Interesting) 330 330

It won't fly, as antibodies are cheap and not complicated to do

What does cost to produce have to do with price, other than to set a minimum? Besides, you can get generic painkillers for 12p a box here in the UK, or you can buy the name brand stuff for £3.50; the two co-exist just fine. (Though I wonder who on earth buys the name-brand stuff...)

They'll do something to stop this treatment in its tracks. They always do.

Links or it didn't happen.

Comment: Re:Do you have to ask? (Score 2) 402 402

Except that in practice, a few people will maybe end up in jail, then as the number of cases increases and more and more people are claiming it was a trojan/virus/whatever, they'll have to either a) stop prosecuting people for it or b) develop a test to detect said malware; detection = no conviction (unless you can successfully argue that the presence of the malware was a ruse to provide an alibi, and they really *were* visiting the sites).

So, I doubt that many people will end up in jail because of a trojan of that sort, just as not many have ended up in jail because of child-porn-planting trojans (which have been successfully used as defences in court).

Comment: Re:What the bloody goddamned fuck? (Score 4, Informative) 169 169

I gather you have never heard of fair use.

I gather you're not from the UK, or at least are not familiar with our copyright laws. There is no "fair use" provision. There is a "fair dealing" provision, but by my reading of the details this does not fall under it.

As of next Thursday, UNIX will be flushed in favor of TOPS-10. Please update your programs.

Working...