Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Well, what did they expect? (Score 1) 667

by unbug (#31599486) Attached to: Wikileaks Receiving Gestapo Treatment?
  1. Yes, and Wikileaks is one way of adding a bit of balance.
  2. Firstly, I'm not sure Wikileaks is bound by any US laws. Is it based in the US? Secondly, I don't believe these particular laws will ever be fixed but if that happens, it will happen because people will show again and again and again why they are bad. Which is what Wikileaks often does.
  3. I think Wikileaks' judgement tends to be quite a bit better than that of most governments worldwide. So they get tons of sympathy on those arguments.

Comment: Re:Well, what did they expect? (Score 2, Insightful) 667

by unbug (#31599372) Attached to: Wikileaks Receiving Gestapo Treatment?

But is Wikileaks the entity that gets to decide what should and shouldn't be classified?

Which entity should decide this? Why would it be more qualified to do so than Wikileaks or anyone else?

Which is worse? Something not supposed to be classified NOT being leaked, or something SUPPOSED to be classified being leaked? I, and most people, would say the latter.

Well, tolerating the former leads directly to a system where people with the power to classify things are not accountable to anyone and where nobody knows what they do. Which, in turn, always leads to all sorts of utterly horrible things. The latter seems to happen quite often recently and what horrible things that have happened because of it? I don't know about most people but I quite definitely think the former is much much worse.


Ubisoft's Authentication Servers Go Down 634

Posted by kdawson
from the single-point-of-well-you-know dept.
ZuchinniOne writes "With Ubisoft's fantastically awful new DRM you must be online and logged in to their servers to play the games you buy. Not only was this DRM broken the very first day it was released, but now their authentication servers have failed so absolutely that no-one who legally bought their games can play them. 'At around 8am GMT, people began to complain in the Assassin's Creed 2 forum that they couldn't access the Ubisoft servers and were unable to play their games.' One can only hope that this utter failure will help to stem the tide of bad DRM."

Yes, we will be going to OSI, Mars, and Pluto, but not necessarily in that order. -- Jeffrey Honig