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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Meh (Score 1) 258

by HiThere (#48671467) Attached to: Did North Korea Really Attack Sony?

Whether North Korea was the sponsor or not, the hack doesn't appear to have originated there. Last I heard someone was pointing a finger at Thailand as the locale, but not at anything official. Speculation was that someone had been hired to do the job. Believe it if you want to, I don't really. I don't think anyone has enough evidence to come to ANY reasonable decision.

Comment: Re:not really likely (Score 1) 258

by HiThere (#48671463) Attached to: Did North Korea Really Attack Sony?

Well, just spinning a story here, but as I understand it North Korea threatened to sabotage South Korea's nuclear power plants. Around that time Obama stopped to have some conversation with some Chinese diplomats....perhaps about Korean relations? And soon thereafter North Korea got blamed quite publicly for a hack that may have been detected a bit before it was made public. Now North Korea's internet connections are sabotaged to keep them from intruding into South Korea's power plants, with China standing mum and not protesting, but the story about why this is going on has to do with this silly movie.

OK, it's just a story. But AFAIKT it is consistent with everything that happened.

Comment: Re:Occam's Razor - PR stunt (Score 1) 258

by HiThere (#48671445) Attached to: Did North Korea Really Attack Sony?

FWIW, I believe that North Korea made some threats about sabotaging South Korea's Nuclear piles. That, to me, is a more credible reason for taking down their internet....if that's what happened. (That their internet went down is apparently true. That it was taken down externally I have heard no acceptable proof of.)

Comment: Re:Occam's Razor (Score 1) 258

by HiThere (#48671433) Attached to: Did North Korea Really Attack Sony?

Do you even have any evidence that the folks who sent the threats were the same people as the ones who copied the files? Any good reason to believe it? Certainly it's a possibility, but I'd like some acceptable evidence before I start believing it. The unsupported word of someone in a position of authority isn't something that I consider acceptable evidence.

Comment: Re:what is this nonsense about 3D printers and gun (Score 1) 109

by HiThere (#48670513) Attached to: How Laws Restricting Tech Actually Expose Us To Greater Harm

I'm sure that you think you have a point, but I haven't a clue as to what it is. Even as a troll this is sub-par. If you're trying to be serious you really need to think more about how to present your argument.

You are, I think, responding to the claim that you aren't noticing that many small changes can yield an important difference. What you intend your response to mean I find opaque.

Comment: Re:Start with copyright (Score 1) 109

by HiThere (#48670407) Attached to: How Laws Restricting Tech Actually Expose Us To Greater Harm

Right. That, after all was the purpose of copyright. To give people a *LIMITED* monopoly. When it expired, then everyone would inherit the work as a common good.

I would argue that 17 years is too long. 5 years with one (fairly expensive) renewal would be better, though the ideal number does differ between fields of endeavor. I could also go with a 3 year first copyright, a renewal for, say, $100. And an nth renewal for $100^n. (You could consider the original publication to be the 0th renewal if you want, and charge a $1 registration fee needed if you intend to apply for any renewals.)

Comment: Re:Start with copyright (Score 1) 109

by HiThere (#48670353) Attached to: How Laws Restricting Tech Actually Expose Us To Greater Harm

That was because the rules were only applied in favor of white males. As written, however, they work quite well where the population is thinly distributed and the communications are slow. They aren't perfect, but I can't think of anything better.

As things are, however, those rules would not work and could not be made to work. They should, however, have been properly ammended rather than being ignored.

Comment: Re:Cuts Both Ways (Score 1) 347

by HiThere (#48669353) Attached to: Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force

Sounds like a win-win, so why is anyone opposed?

(Well, OK, the Seattle police have some decent arguments, but they also appear to have a shady history which causes one to doubt that the arguments raised are their real reasons. Still, they *are* decent arguments. I'm not sure what the resolution should be, but I am sure it should involve continual taping to an archival store that cannot be edited...which is an impossible ideal, but get as close to it as possible.)

You know you've been spending too much time on the computer when your friend misdates a check, and you suggest adding a "++" to fix it.

Working...