Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:I'd be wary of Musk, too (Score 1) 81

What subsidies do oil companies get that no other business is privy to? Unless you mean the US buying and stockpiling some oil (at less than market value) or them buying oil to heat poor people (at less than market value)? They get the same tax breaks every other company gets and no subsidies that I'm aware of. Oil companies aren't even really all that profitable, the vast majority of money spent on oil is in the form of taxes.

I don't know about coal but that's probably much the same. Government paying for the products isn't really a subsidy when, you know, we kind of need those products for the government to function. I guess you could argue that they government shouldn't pay for oil for poor people and should let them freeze to death instead but that's really a pretty trivial amount of money, comparatively speaking.

Comment Re:Not to make excuses for the guy attacking them (Score 1) 214

I'm assuming you typed poorly because that would not be a very wise time to take the law into your hands. I'm hoping that, for your family's sake, you mean "after the first police visit." 'Cause, unless you're a real badass, doing it *when* they first visit is going to go poorly for you. Hell, it's going to go poorly for you even if you're a badass.

Comment Re:Hire a lawyer (Score 1) 214

Instigating isn't a crime. Inciting is. Inciting has a legal burden of proof. This almost certainly doesn't meet that burden. They could, on the other hand, be considered a co-defendant in some cases if they knowingly gave aid to those who committed the criminal offenses.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. In fact, I should be sleeping. If you plan on committing criminal acts, consult an attorney before doing so. (You may want to have a second lawyer on retainer.)

Comment Re: Camo Dude (Score 1) 214

I am, by no means, an expert on this subject but is this an area where you really want to hunt for bargains? I think one would want to pay top dollar for this sort of service. I'd want someone who is skilled enough to demand a high rate and someone who's willing to stay silent after the fact because they've been well paid.

Comment Re:Nothing to hide (Score 1) 73

Well, you made me use the Google. The funny thing is, I should still be sleeping. Something made a loud noise and I was woken up.

The passwords are actually the least interesting part of the leak. There are unencrypted private messages and a user database that allows you to see who was supporting whom.

Expect some interesting articles about people like Thunderf00t and Sargon of Akkad in the next few days. Their private messages are likely a goldmine of damning information and may help the campaign to get them de-funded.

Now unless I'm reading "goldmine" as something that's not positive and "help the campaign" as an active campaign to get people "de-funded" which will limit their ability to speak to a wide audience then no - you're guilty of exactly those things.

Perhaps, maybe, it is my reading comprehension. I didn't cherry pick, I quoted the entirety of your quote. I'm a fair individual. I'm not entirely sure how one can possibly misconstrue something you said - in that case.

I suppose you can claim that you didn't mean goldmine as a positive thing. I'm not gonna buy it. Nobody else is gonna buy it. If one doesn't support finding a goldmine, salivate at the idea even, then I don't know what's wrong with them.

Comment Re:Awwww thats so cute (Score 1) 290

Wow, you're a wee lad. Sit down kiddies, Grandpappy KGIII is gonna tell you a pointless story...

The K6-2 was my first exposure to AMD. I'd always just used Intel before that and the data center had Sun equipment and the office had Sun workstations. I had the AMD K6-2 350 with Windows ME on it and it was *stable* to the point where I had multiple months of uptime while running an OpenNap server and a server hub (connecting disparate servers into one big server - think distributed Napster, basically). I had it overclocked to just a whisker under 500 MHz and it was still stable. It was hot but stable.

I had broadband at the office (upgraded from an ISDN to an OC12 at the time - as I recall, later an OC48 but I'd been "kicked out" of my own DC by then and had real competent people running things) and moved the computer into the server room and ran the hub from there. Eventually, Napster was attracting a lot of legal attention at the the time - it might have been Kazaa that was in the news or whatnot, we were visited by some men who had a taste for drama and dark attire. It would appear that a variety of illicit things were being shared on the network and I was asked if they could manage it for us and, if not, if I'd be so kind as to disable it.

They were still in the office and followed me in and observed me just pressing and holding the power button to force it to shut off. They didn't want to take it with them (I'd have asked them to get a warrant) or anything but they did want to monitor it and collect the data from it. As the hub it could see all the searches, file connections and transfers, and things like that. After they left I asked a tech to wipe the drive and I don't actually know what happened to the computer after that.

This was before the PATRIOT ACT as I recall? I'm not entirely sure of the date but I know it was that computer. I think 9/11 might have happened but I don't think we'd quite reached the TSA/DHS stages of life at that point. I'm pretty sure that they didn't have NSL things at the time. It was a pretty stupid thing for me to have done but it was kind of exciting. I can only imagine the world of hurt that I'd be in today if that situation were to happen in today's world. Sadly, this was only somewhere around 15 years ago. It's amazing how much has changed in such a short time.

Today? I'd probably be facing legal issues or have had been forced to install some software to allow them to monitor the connections and traffic. OpenNap didn't encrypt anything like search data or connectivity data. As the hub, anything that left the individual OpenNap server was something I could see in the logs, at least that's how I remember it. I don't think that I could *easily* view chat as the connection was made across the hub and then the connection was made P2P but the searches and the selected transfers could be seen if they searched for music/porn/files across more than just the server they connected to - you didn't have to connect to the hub and each server could run independently of each other but when they were connected to the hub you could search the whole thing. I had both a hub and a server running.

Hmm... I think it was kgiii.no-ip.org:8088 and metal-hub.no-ip.org:8089 for the hub. Something like that, at any rate. I think the combined users were in the 20-30,000 most of the time with peaks during nights and weekends. As I recall, I used something called WinMX to connect. We survived for a couple of years and they kept going for a while after I left. I sincerely believe that those sorts of activities would land me in prison or in a civil courtroom today. It really is amazing how much the landscape has changed.

We were, shall we say, still a wee bit like the Old West back then. It was a lot more tame than it was when we dialed into individual computers or small networks (it took like a day for an email to travel all the way to Australia but it was awesome and it sometimes actually worked) but it wasn't as tame as it is today. Don't get me wrong, it was never really very good A lot of people seem to remember it as glory days but, really, it was never great. Sure, it was good but not great. In some ways it was better and in other ways it was worse. *sighs*

Anyhow, that's the story of my first AMD processor. I'm still a fan even though they're no longer the king. Frankly, they're "fast enough" for anything that I typically do and, if they're not, I've got some patience. So, I tend to stick with AMD.

And now, Grandpappy KGIII should probably take a nap, after a cup of tea. Oh, and we wore onions on our belt, which was the fashion at the time... ...give me five bees for a quarter... You know, if you live in Western society and were born in 1988 or later, you've never known life without The Simpsons.

Comment Re:Litigious Much (Score 1) 743

So the Belgian Army is engaged in a war on religion!!!

Heh... I'm actually kind of surprised that no one has jumped to those conclusions, based on your comment, and used it for a tirade. No, really, I scrolled down and checked. I'm kind of surprised. This particular subject, Clock Boy, tends to bring out some eccentric (for wont of a better word) people who are quite eager to use anything as an excuse to lash out. Hell, I'm pleasantly surprised that nobody commented along that line. Err... Except for me, of course. I'm not sure that it counts when it's done in jest.

Comment Re:Litigious Much (Score 1) 743

Actually, a lot of science was done by the church once upon a time. Before trotting out the Galileo line (which you're probably itching to do) you might actually want to look into him a bit more closely too. He wasn't put under house arrest for science but for being an idiot. However, the church did lots of science and weren't even particularly anti-science for much of their history. They're still doing science today - quite a bit of it in astronomy and no, no they're not looking at the heavens for God or anything, they're doing real science stuff with their expensive telescopes and full Ph.D scientists.

No, no I'm not a Christian but I am sort of religious. I'm not a member of a religion that the Christians are very fond of either. So, no, this isn't some biases talking - you can look this all up and verify it. I'm a Buddhist, you'd probably say Secular Buddhist, but I prefer a "really piss poor excuse for a Buddhist and sure as shit not a monk." So, while I kind of don't really like the Church, I don't have different reasons for not liking them. They've actually contributed quite a bit to science over the years and some of them are of the mind that the two coexist nicely and don't need to be separated.

Err... Some even postulate that science (at least math) proves that there is a creator. There are more than a few documentaries on the subject and there's at least one episode of the hour-long program with Morgan Freeman that goes into this at some detail. Quite frequently they posit that our very existence is so improbable as to be considered mathematically impossible. While I am inclined to disagree, it's really not much more than a negative and thus can't be proven really. I see no reason to believe it is the case but I figured that I'd share what I know of their views. In other words, take it up with them if you want to argue - it's not my argument.

Comment Re:Because the question is stupid! (Score 1) 191

Thanks! Much appreciated. I'm not a scholar of history but I do try to learn a little here and there. It is disappointing that I have to tell this to people. It's unfortunate that you're the only one who picked up on it and commented. It really should be discussed by people who are more knowledgeable than I.

I'd also ignore the down mod. I got three in a row. That means that Matrix007 got mod points. They did get five for a while but now they only get three and they waste them all on me. They're my stalker. I'm greatly amused by them. At least I assume it's them. They told me they were going to mod all my posts down. It was five, they happen within a few minutes of each other, and now it's just three. I suspect that they're counterbalanced by meta moderation and that means they're losing points. It's too bad, really. I kind of like the attention.

Anyhow, I appreciate the lesson and it gives me a few points to do some additional reading/research. I'm disappointed that we've a Constitutional Scholar as a president who's used that scholarship to encourage and abet the circumvention of the document and its very ideals. I was a little skeptical of posting my comment, not because I fear moderation, because I didn't really have the wherewithal to dig out the resources to cite my claim. I was a little leery that I'd be asked to defend it and I don't quite know how to go about doing that in a reasonable time.

As I said, my fascination with history is not a scholarly pursuit. I do make an effort to understand. What's great is that someone on Slashdot frequently has the knowledge that I don't have. I can mention something like this, something that you might not have thought of or taken the time to write about, and mention the basics and someone (namely you in this case) will come along and fill in the gaps for me and for the other readers. I watch a lot of documentaries but they're entertainment and learning is incidental - I don't watch any real television and haven't in years so having all these documentaries online makes me very happy.

Having said that, and this may be tough to answer, there are mechanisms in place to get us back to where we were. Even SCOTUS can overturn prior decisions. I see this as a very unlikely outcome. Baring a straight up bloody revolution, do you see any path back to those limitations? Do you see the government conceding power willfully? If so, how can we go about working towards that goal?

Comment Re:Nothing to hide (Score 1) 73


Just for you. ;-) You win a gold star for improvement. Marginal improvement but improvement nonetheless.

Hmm... No... Marked improvement, really. I dunno how I remembered the earlier posts (I can't even be certain what I ate for dinner two nights ago) but somehow that stuck in my head. I dare say, with some work, you'll be almost rational again in a few years. Think carefully how the data can be abused. You don't think your heroes are without blemish, do you? In certain subsets of our culture - those who support your idols will also be targeted should this information come to light. Be careful what you wish for.

The very idea that you wanted to have people silenced is still baffling to me. Well no, I understand disliking it but I don't understand the desire to control others. Better the idiot you know than the one skulking about in the shadows, no? People should be free to be stupid and people should be free to enable others to be stupid, no?

What if, say, a closeted homosexual were an executive at a conservative company and donated a goodly amount of money to someone you enjoyed and respected via Patreon? What if this is a bunch of people? What if this is just enough people who lose their jobs, after this information comes to light, for "other reasons" and the idols you have are no longer able to be advocates? What if those companies are put out of business because they have conservative or religious customers who drop them and they're no longer able to support your idols? What if they were having private personal messages discussing their nefarious plans to take down the two people you mention in your post and are then stripped of their membership at Patreon for conspiring against another user in an effort to deprive them of income?

You'd absolutely not support this data leak then - in fact, we both know you'd be slamming it and claiming it was against the law, the perpetrators need to be jailed, and that someone ought to do something! You'd be in straight up hysterics. (If the conniption fits, wear it.) You'd be, shall we say, going ballistic and we both know this to be true.

So, yes, I see your post today as tempered and a marked improvement and my original conclusion that it was a marginal improvement is in error. You're no longer calling for people to act on this to use it as a weapon to silence people and that's an improvement. I figured that I'd referenced you and discussed you in a comment below so it was only fair/appropriate to notify you of such. There is no need to respond but you can, if you want. You don't usually reply to folks but I know you read them.

'Snot my fault you marked me as a foe. Sheesh. That's the indicator that I use to keep track of users so I can remember who's said smart things and who hasn't. Thus it automatically brings your posts to my attention. The funny thing is, we're probably on the same side and you just don't realize it. Err... And I'm also not a crazy zealot so there's differences. I admire your ability to empathize but you sure seem to lose perspective with some issues and take things to an extreme - to the point of becoming that which you profess to hate.

Ah well, there's your amateur (unqualified) psychoanalysis. In fairness, I admire your empathy but I'd dread having your logic circuits. I imagine that there are subjects where I too am irrational but I don't see it because, well, I'm irrational. Anyhow, as said, no need to reply unless you feel compelled to do so. I just figured I'd share that you were discussed and that you might miss said discussion and the chance to speak on your own behalf if you felt a need to do so. I also figured that I'd commend you on your more tempered response. I'd like to think that you'd do the reverse and, if you wouldn't, don't tell me 'cause I would prefer to not be disillusioned. I am jaded enough, thanks. And no, I don't think I stated anything that you'd defend yourself from but it would be "unfair" of me to not give you the chance to do by omission.

Comment Re:Nothing to hide (Score 1) 73

If you follow this topic back to the beginning of it - as it showed up here, you can find that AmiMojo very specifically rooted for this data to be released in hopes that it would be used to silence the people they don't agree with. They were quite pleased about the idea and hoped that it would make people cut off their funding and inhibit these people's ability to be heard and motivation to speak. In other words, they wanted to make them less able to act on their freedom of speech. They were quite open about this.

This? This is an improvement. Ami's made some decent strides as of late. Just encourage them to think and show them the people they're associating with and how their behavior is seen. I'd never have noticed but I did something to piss them off so they flagged me as a foe. I'd never really paid attention to them. Unfortunately, for them, some things stick in my memory and the little flag makes me pay attention to their username as I use the flag to mark posters who have interesting things to say or to ignore those who don't.

So, that means I remember. I'm too lazy to dig through their post but they're all public. Just click on the older link at the bottom of their profile and go back in time. They've discussed this in two separate threads - this is the third. Their tone has tempered since the first and, frankly, I'm kind of proud of them. I see their zealotry as a problem but not their empathy. In my view, they're empathetic to the point that they lose rationality. Meh, it happens to all of us with certain subjects. We're not Vulcans.

Anyhow, feel free to verify this. This is actually an *improvement* for them. (I don't imagine that they'd expected anyone to recollect their prior posting and, truthfully, I wouldn't have but they made themselves a detail that I pay attention to.) At first they were gleeful and eager. They wanted a group of people to use this information to shut down the two specific people that they mentioned in their post. They wanted others to take away their funding source and limit their ability to speak.

If it were people outing homosexuals for the purpose of embarrassing them then I doubt they'd be so inclined to root for the data leak and would be saying leaking such data is immoral. But, baby steps. I'm kind of surprised that I remembered but, well, some things just stick in your memory for some reason. The material is free for one to look up if they want. I'm a bit lazy so that's unlikely to be something that I do.

Comment Re:Security theater (Score 1) 142

I'm not positive but I think war profiteering is supposed to be illegal. It doesn't appear to be prosecuted in modern times, however. We've got a war on *everything* except stupidity (but I think there's a war on illiteracy). With that in mind, I'm now thinking there are a number of business executives who could do well by serving a little prison time. We should let out some non-violent drug offenders to make room.

Comment Re:Don't evolve your business model (Score 0) 199

The book you bought at the book store was a single copy, not multiple copies made from a single source. I don't think a fair use exception is *likely* to hold up - even in Germany. Either way, you bought one book that the vendor purchased and sold to you. The app company bought nothing, is stripping the ads out, repackaging, and selling the content. Hyperbole aside, that's just not going to fly in a reasonable court. There's a big difference between that and buying a used book with some notes and missing/torn pages.

Hmm... This would be more like buying a single copy, scratching the authors name out, adding some notes to the margins, maybe highlighting something, cutting out the pictures, ripping out the table of contents, inserting your own table of contents, throwing the appendices into the trash, photocopying it 10000 times, and selling the copies! (I mean, if we're gonna be hyperbolic then I want in on this too.) I just don't think the fair use argument is valid. Altruistic? Yes. Valid? Not so much.

Were I to take the side of the newspaper company, I'd have opted to not seek redress under copyright alone - I'd have also first vied for estoppal with basic tenets (assuming they're similar) of property law. I'd think the property laws would be stronger protection though they may not cover financial loss. If they can prove the property violation (seems trivial) then they can likely prove demonstrable harm with a copyright suit (assuming it is similar to the US) and then seek financial compensation.

I detailed the property harm in another post in this thread if it's not clear.

Obviously, don't think that I'm absolutely advocating that this is how it should be. I'm simply saying this is how it is. I'd go so far as to say I'm not entirely sure how it should be - I truly haven't reached a conclusion as to how it *should* be. At this point, I'm inclined to believe that a company, or person, should have complete control over their property and that includes the server owner having a right to say how their system is used. At the same time, I find that antithetical to the idea of an ideal of freedom but, then again, freedom does (potentially) rely on the basic concepts of ownership and control of one's property. For, of course, certain definitions of freedom.

Again, if that's confusing, this thread has a more detailed post on my thoughts concerning the property rights aspect. At this point, it's mostly mental bubblegum.

At any rate, to use your book as yet another example of why this isn't likely to be found legal, the author of the your book was paid once and someone reselling books have an explicit exception in them known as the 'first sale doctrine.' There's no exception for that in this case and, if there was, it'd only include the ability to sell a single copy.

You could *probably* buy a single copy of the paper, we'll say physical for simplicity, and cut the ads out of that before reselling it at a profit or loss. I dare say that such would be completely legal. You can build a device that would enable paper BUYERS to view their PURCHASED papers without seeing the ads. But you couldn't sell them a device and then steal the paper for them every day so that they had a copy to read.

Hmm... You know? There's no really good analogy for this. I'll try to think of a car analogy if you want but I'd be a little suspicious if you asked for one. ;-)

"Love your country but never trust its government." -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania