Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Sue them for all they're worth (Score 1) 495

by Whibla (#47360499) Attached to: Microsoft Takes Down Domains


No-IP domains are used 93 percent of the time for Bladabindi-Jenxcus infections, which are the most prevalent among the 245 different types of malware currently exploiting No-IP domains.

[Emphasis Mine]

So, Microsoft is alleging that No-IP is assisting (presumably knowingly) in the distribution of malware and that 93% of No-IP's domains are vehicles for malware distribution. Is this true? I don't know, but I kind of doubt it.

What's next, a RICO prosecution for the owners of No-IP?

I'm not sure if you're interpreting that figure in the way that it was intended. It's certainly not the way I'm reading it, which is that of all the Bladabindi-Jenxcus infections that occur 93% of them originate within No-IP's domains, the other 7% originate elsewhere, unspecified. This is substantially different to 93% of their domains are being used to distribute malware.

Still very very suspicious though.

Comment: Re:Should solve water shortage issues... (Score 1) 784

by Whibla (#46988589) Attached to: Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans As Antarctic Ice Melts

So now with all that burned oil we are at 0.05% CO2 an increase of 0.01%. But you just said tiny percent changes aren't significant...

emphasis mine...

His example: Salinity of 3.5% changes to 3.497% with an increase in ocean levels of 3 meters. This is a relative change of -0.08%. As he said, not significantly different from before.

Your example: 0.039% CO2 changes to 0.05% CO2 after burning the majority of our fossil fuel reserves. This is a relative change of 28.20%. Unlike you imply, this is pretty significant.

Ohh I love math.

There was a reason for Disraeli 's comment about lies, damn lies, and statistics and I suspect he was thinking about someone just like you when he said it.

Comment: Re:Tyranny (Score 2) 252

The analogy can be made to work however...

Imagine a pamphlet, printed in a country that's not Finland, that includes, like many do, a back cover soliciting for donations for some worthy cause. I mention to my Finnish friend an article I happened to read in aforementioned pamphlet, and they say to me "That sounds fascinating, I'd be very interested in reading that article. Can you send it to me?*". So I pop the pamphlet in an envelope, and post it to them. So now a Fin, in Finland, is in possession of something soliciting funds, from an organisation that has not applied for permission to solicit funds within Finland. Uh oh!

Are you suggesting that the organisation that wrote the pamphlet should be held liable for any fines levied by the Finnish courts? Perhaps instead the person who mailed the pamphlet should be held liable, even though they have nothing to do with the organisation doing the soliciting? If neither of these is the case, in what way is this situation different to what is being discussed?

*If it helps you might like to think of this request as akin to the http get request to load the web page in your browser.

Comment: Re:There's video and then there's smart video (Score 1) 192

by Whibla (#46199435) Attached to: Cops With Google Glass: Horrible Idea, Or Good One?

So imagine a world where cops all have smart glasses and are running apps that do face recognition combined with database lookups. So instead of stop-n-frisk based on race, they can stop-n-frisk based on "He's a known convict" or "He once Tweeted that he likes to get high" or "He's unemployed, but walking out of a high-end department store", etc...

You say this like it's a bad thing. I can't help but think that actual person specific data is a better reason to stop an individual, and subject them to a more detailed scrutiny, than the police basing their decision on race, clothing worn, policeman's intuition, or whatever reason takes their fancy at the time. Once we have granted the police the right to stop and search, giving them the ability to focus on those more likely to be breaking the law is a good thing, surely?

Likewise amongst civilians, smart glass apps tied to, sex offender databases or other public records... political contributions, licenses, etc...

I have to say, public records are public records. If the public were not meant to be able to access this data it wouldn't be public. While I'm sure there will be individuals, some of whom won't even be on those lists you mentioned or ashamed of what the web remembers of them, who will object to this instant access on principle I'm struggling to see exactly what that principle is.

I think it's great for cops to be recording what they're doing, as long as their video can't be destroyed (until a standard time-based dump applied to all recordings not being used as evidence),...

I tend to agree. I would hope, however, that any video they do record is both timestamped and watermarked in some way, so as to provide some level of trust in the veracity of any footage.

...and as long as individuals remain free to record cops as well.

And this I emphatically agree with. The occasions when certain police officers have forbidden members of the public from filming them, and even removed cameras from them, is just wrong. There is no justification, and any excuse is generally couched in terms of an appeal to authority. That authority does not exist.

Comment: Re:Resurrecting (Score 1) 2219

by Whibla (#46190239) Attached to: Slashdot Tries Something New; Audience Responds!

What do you think?

As quite a few others have said, I read /. for the comments. I have been reading the comments, and even, occasionally, the stories, here for over 15 years. And, while I have taken a month off here, a month of there, I keep coming back, to get a feeling for what other people think. I read far more than I comment, and, even when I do comment, half of them seem to be unnecessary, and pedantic, corrections to wiser, or at least more knowledgeable, peoples' posts. Well, sorry for the last part. At least it shows I'm paying attention, if not always to the right things...

Anyway, preamble aside, I'm afraid that somehow I managed to miss both previous occasions when went live, and subsequently died. Clearly the time was not right. Unfortunately, I have no idea if now is the right time either. Will Slashdot beta, and the associated outpouring of venom, create the tipping point you need? Again, that's a question I cannot answer, though I'll certainly throw my weight (all 9 stone something of it) behind any attempt you make to create a better version of Slashdot / replacement for Groklaw.

I have a few concerns however:

Firstly, as Archfield asked above, will any death of the existing Slashdot result in an exodus or a diaspora. I have seen two (so far, I think) other Slashdot alternatives mooted. Weight of numbers is one of the major factors likely to be critical in establishing a viable community, one that will last. Another major factor, as you touched on above, is the provision of content, by which I mean the initial seed, the story, the hook, that gets people talking. How can the issue of submissions, and the editing of them, be addressed and improved?

Secondly, one of the reasons I like Slashhdot, is the fact that I can flag people who post well thought out (infomative, insightful, educational, etc.) comments, whether I agree with them or not, as friends. There's a lot of history here. While I am loathe to lose this I do appreciate that, should Slashdot actually fail, whichever alternative I settle on will have the same problems but, is there any way that this can be mitigated?

Finally (well, far from finally, but...) should you bite the bullet and resurrect again, what's the chance of getting a three digit id?

Comment: Re:Should be Alternative Language Requirement (Score 1) 426

by Whibla (#46069827) Attached to: Kentucky: Programming Language = Foreign Language

... And, or course, in English gender is nearly absent. But there's no way of talking about a single person without specifying it...

Somewhat off-topic, but I thought I'd correct this misconception. The word 'they', though normally plural, can also refer to a person, singular. No gender implications one way or the other.

Comment: Re:Same rules apply (Score 1) 303

by Whibla (#45811307) Attached to: Website Checkout Glitches: Two Very Different Corporate Responses

That you have found it impossible to understand that "buy three items, cheapest free" doesn't involve buying four items doesn't say much for your reading comprehension. That you further seem to fail to recognise that the discount gained doesn't involve adding any numbers up at all speaks volumes about your critical thinking or logical reasoning skills.

Then again, maybe, like me, you've just engaged in a knee-jerk reaction to demonstrate how smart you are to yourself by putting someone else down. Welcome to the internet.

Comment: Re:"...without slaughtering animal(S)-plural, guys (Score 1) 221

by Whibla (#44464473) Attached to: $375,000 Lab-Grown Beef Burger To Debut On Monday

I'm going to guess you didn't actually bother to read the article then:

Yeah you only have to kill the source of the stem cells. So ridiculous!

No! Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells are simply (usually) skin cells that have been 'regressed' back to the state of stem cells. There is absolutely no requirement to kill the source creature. It would be slightly unfortunate if this were the case, as they are currently being used in medical research to treat various issues such as age related macular degeneration (age related blindness) or the creation of artificial livers.

The article could have been spun to be about anything else under the sun, from efficiency to nutrition, and all we can do is kow-tow to the PETAveg crowd?

Spin is the bane of honest reporting. But, again, going back to the article:

"...cultured meat may need 35% to 60% less energy, occupy 98% less land, and produce 80% to 95% less greenhouse gases than conventional meat."

Well, what do you know, other potential benefits of the technology were addressed within the article. The fact that the summary chose to accentuate the possibility of creating meat without killing animals is not really representative of the entire article. In fact, if anything it's quite the reverse:

"Cultured meat is now grown in medium with fetal calf serum, a supplement made from blood collected at slaughterhouses; scientists have yet to find an alternative that doesn't involve dead animals."

However, I strongly suspect that the issue here is not one of inability but practicality. It would be quite possible to take blood from live animals, not killing them, and extract the serum this way. I'm just not sure why you'd bother, given the rate that biotechnology is advancing. We will soon have the knowledge and skills required to create the necessary culture 'soup' or medium, all within the laboratory.

I do find it slightly amusing that the presentation is due to be held in an arts centre. But is it really art?

Comment: Re:Kopimism doesn't erase infringement (Score 0) 82

by Whibla (#42889489) Attached to: Finnish Anti-Piracy Site Pirates Thepiratebay Content

In Finland you cannot give up your moral rights

Copyright is not a moral right. It is not morally right to deny others the 'ability' to copy the material in question for a period of, potentially, a hundred years or more, and certainly much longer than the lifespan of the flesh and blood creator of that material.

It is a legal right, and nothing more.

If anything it is the current laws on copyright which are immoral...

Comment: Re:Will there be lawsuits? (Score 2) 305

by Whibla (#40424013) Attached to: Cyanide-Producing GM Grass Linked To Texas Cattle Deaths

The food you eat is usually made from sterile seeds.

Emphasis mine.

There is no chance of it mutating. I hope there are lawsuits too, but not because what I eat is GM, but because the cattle were pretty much poisoned and the owners should be compensated.

Wouldn't a supposedly sterile plant spontaneously producing viable seeds actually count as a mutation? I recall something like that actually happening some years back, when gmo's were all the rage (erm...being raged about). 'Fraid you might have to use your own Google-fu on that though.

Does this mean the end of gmo's? Nope. Are most of them safe? Probably. Does this mean that the anti-gmo folk were wrong? Not all of them apparently...

Comment: Re:This is stupid. (Score 1) 286

by Whibla (#39898579) Attached to: British Prime Minister To Announce Porn Blocking Plans

You could almost argue that any block, even if you 'can' opt out of it, is an unfair restriction on free trade. As for no-one wanting their daughter involved with porn, maybe it's time people realised what equality really means, and ask the woman in question what she feels about it, as opposed to letting their own moral bias infringe upon others' rights.

Sometimes I do despair...

Comment: Re:I can not (Score 1) 168

by Whibla (#39360293) Attached to: The Laser Unprinter

This is done now. Take page 23 from the final copy with signatures and a modified page 21 from an earlier copy when you submit it to the judge.

Nice to see that your people have worked out how to fully utilise the marvels of headers and footers and version numbering in your important documentation...

Comment: Re:So totally broken ... (Score 4, Insightful) 253

by Whibla (#39347897) Attached to: TVShack Creator's US Extradition Approved

Can't wait for Americans to be extradited to Iran or somewhere else for violating their laws ... because it would be hypocritical to deny the request now.

Compare this case with that of the American soldier, a sergeant I believe, who while serving in Afghanistan decided to go on a shooting spree in a village close to his camp. He broke into several civilian dwellings, and killed 16 people, including many children. The Afghanis are understandably furious, and are demanding that this soldier be handed over to them, to be tried and sentenced in an Afghan court. So far the Americans have refused, and it is likely that they will continue to do so. Now, irrespective of what excuses they might come up with (and I'm struggling to think of any that might be termed reasonable), what does this say about America's attitude to other nations, and their rule of law? Again, compare the extradition to America of a citizen of another country, for doing something which was not illegal in the country in which he did it, to the murder of 16 people in a country by a citizen of the US, and not allowing that country to even try the man.

Hypocritical doesn't even begin to say it!

Message from Our Sponsor on ttyTV at 13:58 ...