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


Forgot your password?

Comment water stops alpha particles (Score 1) 521

I think what you said is true.

Also, as I understand it, the long-lived isotopes tend to emit alpha particles. Alpha particles are easily stopped- they don't penetrate most materials, including water. So most of the radiation is expended by the particles hitting the water.

On the other hand, if the fish eat plutonium particles and a human eats the fish, that's not good. On the other hand, taking a walk on sunny day exposes you to more radiation than a power plant ever will, excepting a worst-case scenario.

Comment Yes. That's what republicans have said for years. (Score 2) 338

When it comes to granting new powers to the government , that's exactly right. Republicans have been saying tat for decades and Bysh Jr was criticized for taking on new powers, because any new power he assumed would be inherited by Obama or whoever came next.

Looking at poll numbers, Jeb Bush us likely to be elected president in two years. How much power do you want Jeb Bush to have? Any powers you grant Obama will be inherited by J Bush.

Comment no, he said don't take NEW powers if your successo (Score 3, Informative) 338

No, he didn't say everything needs to have bipartisan support. He said that if the FCC assumes a NEW power, the power to override state law and ban or require municipal broadband, the FCC will still have that power when Jeb Bush is president. If you decide that the FCC can choose whether or not muni is built, a different FCC chairman would inherit that power and could ban municipal broadband. Don't assume new powers for yourself if you don't want your successor to have the same power.

That's something I keep in mind. If Palin were president, would I want her administration running the health care industry? If not, I should oppose government run healthcare because we WILL have a president as bad as Palin at some point. Maybe in 2016, maybe in teo years, maybe in six years, maybe in ten years. We will have a horrible president. How much control do I want that crappy president to have over my life?

Comment That's his point. Don't let the FCC ban/require (Score 4, Informative) 338

You seem to have completely missed his point, so let me break that long sentence into four short sentences for you:

The is FCC deciding if it has the (unconstitutional) power to decide whether or not municipal broadband is built, disregarding state law.
If the FCC assumes that power, a future FCC chairman would therefore have the power to ban municipal broadband.
That would be bad.
Therefore, don't assume new powers that you wouldn't want your successor to have.

I'm not sure if I agree in this case. I do agree with the general principle- if you acquiesce to Obama assuming new powers, president Jeb Bush will inherit those new powers in a couple years.

Comment Mostly Wordpress, then. 50% accurate: all sites (Score 5, Informative) 33

I see of the top "features" they identified, mostly is just various tags that mean Wordpress is in use. So they learned that Wordpress sites tend to get hacked. Duh. The Wordpress team isn't interested in security. I demonstrated an exploit for a serious vulnerability in Wordpress and submitted it to their bug tracker. For two years it sat, with one WP developer saying "it can't be exploited" - even though I attached an exploit directly to the tracker issue. Two years later, the vulnerability was added to a 'sploit kit and thousands of sites were compromised over the course of just a few days. That's when WP finally got around to patcing the clear and significant vulnerability.

I see TFA claims "66% accuracy". "All sites will be hacked at some point" is about 50% accurate. I bet we could have 66% accuracy simply by saying "sites running PHP 5.2 or below will be hacked."

Comment C and Basic(.net) to learn both sides,tree forest (Score 1) 548

I think it's very valuable to be at least a little bit familiar with C, so you understand what the interpreter or .NET runtime is doing behind the scenes, and something like a .NET language for a bigger view. For example, I didn't really "get" objects until I worked on VB for a while. Graphical objects like text boxes and buttons are clearly objects which have their own properties, events, and methods. Until then, I thought of objects as little more than function libraries. Working in C or something else low level, sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees.

On the other hand, people who only know very high level, highly abstracted, languages routinely do stuff that's obviously incredibly stupid - obvious to the person who can roughly translate that C# into ansi C. If you don't know what the runtime is doing behind the scenes, you don't realize that while you could access the disk 1,000 times, you're instead accessing it 1,000^2 times (1,000,000).

Not that everyone should be GOOD at C or assembly and good at Java or .NET, but being familiar enough with both high and low level will make you much better at whichever you prefer.

Comment All roads lead to Rome. (you're both silly) (Score 2) 299

You're both being silly. Roads, including PAVED roads, have existed for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
  Appius Claudius Caecus, a government official in Rome, commissioned the Via Appia (Appian Way) over two thousand years ago, but thousands of years before that there was a road to Bethhoron. Consider also:

Then they said, Behold, there is a feast of the LORD in Shiloh yearly in a place which is on the north side of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Bethel to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah.
Judges 21:19

As marauders lie in ambush for a victim, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, carrying out their wicked schemes.
Hosea 6:9

Raise your hand if you know all about Canaanite infrastructure projects in the third millennium BC. I'm going to venture a guess that neither of you have any idea how the roads in Horeb were built.

Those would be early examples of _improved_ roads. Roads, as named routes, existed in the stone age. Which one of you is going to claim you were at the tribal council meeting in Grog's cave 14,000 years ago to witness the road improvement project being contracted out to Ork?

Comment not just theory, knowingly false = actual damages (Score 1) 155

> In theory false takedowns could be pursued in court.

The statute specifically says that if someone KNOWINGLY misrepresents tge facts in a DMCA notice, they can be sued for actual damages. In contrast , someone who NEGLIGENTLY infringes can be sued for statutory damages. Knowingly is a much huger standard than recklessly or negligently. If Google can prove that Warner Brothers KNOWS a notice they are sending is bogus, Google can sue for their actual costs, about $5. That's in the DMCA law , and that's the problem with tge DMCA law.

> The real problem here is automated takedowns.

The automated notices you're talking about are sent recklessly or at least negligently. If Google and the target could sue fir reckless notices and receive statutory damages, that would solve the problem.

> How can you have a computer send

You had your computer send that message to Slashdot's computer. You did so carefully, not recklessly or negligently.

Comment I own Apache code. I allege your post infringes it (Score 1) 155

As an author, I own rights to Apache httpd.
I allege that your post infringes my copy rights on Apache and demand that Slashdot remove your post.

I am indeed "the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." My ownership of my Apache contributes is a true fact. I allege that you've infringed those rights. The perjury part applies (only) to my statement that I do in fact own the rights to my contributions. Whether or not your post infringes my rights is for a judge or jury to decide, because it's a complicated question.

Whether or not the whole complaint is true is the subject of the "knowingly misrepresents" clause, which would be better if it was "recklessly misrepresents" or "negligently misrepresents".

Comment Yeah, we objected to the "knowingly" false. Neglig (Score 1) 155

Yeah, an earlier draft was better, but since you can only recover damages for KNOWINGLY false claims, and there are no statutory damages, it allows large-scale bogus claims. Truly, though, if it allowed damages for recklessly false or negligent claims, and had statutory damages, that would pretty much fix it. The procedure outlined in the law is actually pretty good. The content goes right back up if the person who posted it says it's not infringing. It's just the lack of any penalty for reckless claims that screws up an otherwise pretty reasonable law.

Comment DMCA has a section for search engines. Full text (Score 2) 155

The DMCA has a section titled "Information Location Tools" which covers linking. Here's the relevant text of the law:

        for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider—
                (A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;
                (B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
                (C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

Further up, it says that once you've received a DMCA notice with all the blanks filled in, you have actual knowledge. So Under d 1 c, after receiving notice a search engine or other locator service (torrent tracker) must "acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material"

The problem is that there's no statutory damages for even knowingly false claims, and no damages at at for reckless claims.
Adding statutory damages for reckless claims would mean these big companies would stop filing all the reckless claims.

Comment perjury re identity only not accuracy. EZ fix DMCA (Score 5, Informative) 155

DMCA requires a statement:

        "under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

The perjury statement is just that the person sending the complaint is an authorized representative of the _alleged_ owner.
In other words, if you or I sent a complaint that someone is violating Bill Clinton's copyright, THAT would violate that section, because we're not authorized to enforce Clinton's rights.

As to the accuracy of the complaint, DMCA provides that you can be sued for actual damages if you KNOWINGLY file a false complaint. "Knowingly" is a special word in law, with a carefully established definition. It means more than recklessly or negligently. To sue them, you have to prove that they KNEW it was bogus. If they filed it without caring whether or not it was bogus, that's insufficient. It would be better if you could sue for reckless or negligent claims, but you can only sue for knowingly false claims. Changing that one word from "knowingly" to "negligently" or "recklessly" would go a long way toward fixing DMCA.

Secondly, the bogus claimant can be sued only for actual damages. Suppose it costs Google $5 to process each takedown. For a knowingly false takedown notice, they can sue to get that $5 back. They're not going to pend $100K to sue someone for $5. Not going to happen. What would fix that would be the same thing that holders of registered copyrights have under the law - statutory damages. The current text of the law is:

        Any person who knowingly misrepresents ... shall be liable for any damages ... incurred

We could just change that to:

        Any person who RECKLESSLY misrepresents ... shall be liable for the greater of $25,000 or any damages ... incurred.
        Any person who negligently misrepresents ... shall be liable for the greater of $10,000 or any damages ... incurred.

A Google lawyer could then sue Warner Bros for 100 reckless notices and damages would be _at_least_ $2.5 million which pays the lawyer's salary for several years. They'd settle for the $1 million "negligent" amount, and Google could have a staff of lawyers suing all the assholes, hitting them for a million dollars each time until they stopped sending notices recklessly.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit!" -- Looney Tunes, "What's Opera Doc?" (1957, Chuck Jones)