Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Nope (Score 1) 295

That is not much of a correction, though. Those four entities comprise the vast bulk of (the operations and analysis in) the American intelligence community, and are the most involved with questions of Russian influence in US affairs. Do you think the US Coast Guard Intelligence or the Department of Energy's Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence are going to have particular insights into Russian attempts to influence our elections?

Comment Re:Nope (Score 2, Interesting) 295

As I said, you are more interested in arguing about standards of evidence -- with the implication that the people asking for evidence are so unreasonable that nothing will convince them -- than actually pointing to evidence.

Here's a bonus hint to not sound pretentiously ignorant: Nobody is engaging in Bayesian reasoning about this. Nobody's going to give you a prior probability that politician X colluded with the Russians on subject Y, unless politician X has been caught on tape telling the Russians how much more flexibility X will have after his election. Nobody is going to give a formula on how to form an a posteriori belief from the combination of an a priori belief and a particular piece of evidence, until all the parameters are set -- at which point it is entirely an ad hoc, political, and non-repeatable exercise.

Comment Re:Nope (Score 5, Insightful) 295

If someone asks for evidence, present the most compelling and convincing evidence you have. It is a lame dodge, and implicit admission that you have nothing, to demand that someone else define a standard of evidence -- because you would then just argue about their definition instead of providing evidence.

Comment Re:Very high level of confidence in TREASON (Score 1) 232

So your answer to my question -- do you have evidence that Trump offered things to the Russian government, or that his administration actually did things to shield Russia from sanctions or prosecution -- is apparently "no". I gave those as examples of things that I would accept as clear evidence of improper "collusion", not as "whataboutism".

Comment Re:Very high level of confidence in TREASON (Score 4, Informative) 232

That is not evidence of Trump trying to shield Russia. That is evidence of Trump trying to enforce the nation's anti-espionage laws, although he still has a long way to go before he equals Obama's record for prosecuting alleged leakers.

Do you have video of Trump talking to Russia's president or prime minister, saying something like "after my election, I have more flexibility", and asking that the message be carried to Vladimir Putin? Did Trump's DOJ hide an investigation into Russian bribes and similar corruption among uranium dealers until after Trump's State Department approved the sale of something like 20% of America's uranium reserves to a Russian company?

If you substitute "Obama" for "Trump" in those questions, the answer to both is "yes".

But that's a narrative that you won't hear from Los Tiempos de Nuevo York.

Comment Re:Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... (Score 1) 118

I don't know what protections Google has against the kind of abuse you describe, but it is reasonably clear that the end user is working to infringe the copyright in that kind of case, just like a library is not liable for people who use the library's photocopiers to duplicate books or currency.

Good luck convincing everybody involved that your idea of "fair" payment really is, or even that the benefits of requiring a subscription before accessing any data come anywhere close to outweighing the huge drawbacks of requiring that.

Comment Re:Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... (Score 1) 118

(h)(1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term of copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a nonprofit educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce, distribute, display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or phonorecord of such work, or portions thereof, for purposes of preservation, scholarship, or research, if such library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that none of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) apply.

So, uh, which of these works are in the last 20 years of copyright? How does the Internet Archive ensure that copies it makes for third parties are for the purpose of scholarship or research? How do they certify that none of those conditions apply? (2(A) is essentially that the work is still being sold new, 2(B) is that copies are available at reasonable prices, and 2(C) is that a copyright owner or their agent can "provide[] notice" that 2(A) or 2(B) applies.)

The comment about stripped DRM is not that the Internet Archive is violating the DMCA, but that they are providing copies where the protections against indefinite use and further copying are provided only by DRM, and that DRM could be broken.

Comment Re:Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... (Score 1) 118

Perhaps that organization should focus more on its "only purpose", then, and stop providing copies of currently copyrighted works to the current generation. Also, if the Internet Archive is still doing this, now is not 10 years after the fact -- it is 10 years into ongoing actions.

Comment Fair use doesn't work like TFA thinks... (Score 4, Interesting) 118

A court sided with Google on the "fair use" question mostly because Google's scanning process (a) was transformative and (b) did not substantially affect the market for the original work. Google provided a way to search within books -- which was not a capability offered before -- and when Google shows the context from the original work, it does not show all the pages of the book. Instead, it cuts chunks out so that readers have a reason to get the book through an authorized channel. The decision did not depend on whether Google is a for-profit or non-profit enterprise, because copyright law does not inquire about that.

In this case, the Internet Archive doesn't have either of those copyright-relevant factors on its side.

The AC who submitted the story also distorts what TFA said "leaves critical legal issues unresolved": It is not the fact that SFWA is raising a hue and cry 10 years after the Internet Archive launched this effort, but rather the fact that much of what the Internet Archive does goes below the radar of content creators in general.

Comment Re:Daily Stormer (Score 1) 144

That is conclusory and unconvincing. If net neutrality's best argument is "nuh uh, net neutrality means you have the right to be spoken to, not to speak", no wonder the FCC canned it. Are you so new to the Internet that you do not remember the way people accessed the Internet before corporations tried to lock people into their walled gardens? People who access the Internet have a right to speak, but the net neutrality crowd doesn't like that for some reason.

Comment Re:Work around the problem (Score 3, Informative) 144

"[W]hether the FCC can govern intrastate commerce" is not a very accurate description of the question before the Supreme Court, or that court's decision. That case was an extremely narrow ruling on whether two particular sections of the federal law establishing the FCC gave the FCC authority to preempt state rules on depreciation schedules for equipment where both the FCC and the state had jurisdiction over setting telecom rates.

Contrast that to the rulings in Wickard and is progeny, through Gonzales v. Raich (2005), where federal law can govern even intrastate activities as long as the local effects are part of an overarching scheme of national regulation.

Comment Re:Daily Stormer (Score 1) 144

Hosting companies were not the only ones to block the racist morons: registrars also did, which is what OP was complaining about. Exactly where does net neutrality say that ISPs can't discriminate, but hosting companies and domain registrars are free to discriminate, and why? Because "net neutrality" is largely being pushed by hosting companies and other people who want to force ISPs to carry their content?

Slashdot Top Deals

Wherever you go...There you are. - Buckaroo Banzai