Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Comment I'd go for low tech. (Score 1) 1

by CalebJamesDeLisle (#28194799) Attached to: Home Security
There is a company which sells steel plates which reinforce your doorjam (expensive) I'd bet you could have a metal shop make them to spec. Maybe you could build a mudroom which can catch people like a havaheart trap. Bars are a bad idea because anyone can hook a chain to them and to a truck and pull them off. Know about bumpkeys, the best locks are those mechanical push-button (buttons in a 5 point star pattern).
Webcams are a neat idea, you probably want to get the crook's licence plate more than their face though (you might even catch the goons with thumbdrives who install the spyware in everyone's bios) Wouldn't it be better though to have a secure house than an effective way to catch the buglers after the fact? (coming from a Linux op who uses no anti-virus)
Businesses

Submission + - New investment strategy: investment in lawsuits? (nytimes.com) 1

Submitted by guga31bb
guga31bb writes: Could this be the next wave of investment? "Juris typically invests $500,000 to $3 million in a case, Mr. Desser said. He would not identify the company's backers, but said that 'on the portfolio as a whole, our returns are well in excess of 20 percent per year.' He added, 'We're certainly beating the market.'"

Comment Who's selling them their net access? (Score 1) 3

by CalebJamesDeLisle (#28176721) Attached to: Pentagon Plans New Arm to Wage CyberWars
It doesn't make much sense, if they start DoSing China, China will just unhook from their pipes. "We need to be able to operate within that domain just like on any battlefield" Yea, and their IP addresses will be on the peerguardian blacklists before they even get to make the first strike, if they start IP spoofing, they will suddenly discover that nobody wants to connect to their network anymore. They may have lots of fiber, but if they abuse it they will have no more internet connections.
I can only see them as useful if they work with the open source community to identify vulnerabilities and release patches, like outpost24.

Comment Taxation would kill the internet. (Score 1) 390

by CalebJamesDeLisle (#28175671) Attached to: Newspaper Execs Hold Secret Meeting To Discuss Paywalls
"$1 on all Internet connections" Yea and the income tax was only supposed to hit the top 1%.
"After a few years, phase out the fee (hum...)" Income tax was just to pay for WW2 right?
The Internet depends on everything (bandwidth, hardware...) always getting cheaper, taxation only ever increases, this is why taxation would kill the net. Rupert knows this.
I remember hearing that RIAA wanted to tax the internet too http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/14477.cfm
To me, this is like robbing Tesla Motors to keep GM afloat. Just let the failures fail and the successes succeed.
The Courts

Obama DoJ Goes Against Film Companies 321

Posted by Soulskill from the shaking-things-up dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "If one attempted to distill a single prevailing emotion or attitude about government on Slashdot, I think it is fairly arguable that the winner would be cynicism or skepticism. Well here's a story that could make us skeptical and/or cynical about our skepticism and/or cynicism. Chalk one up for those who like to point out that, occasionally, the system does work. You may recall that the US Supreme Court has been mulling over whether to grant the film industry's petition for certiorari seeking to overturn the important Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. This was the case which held that Cablevision's allowing its customers to make copies of shows and store them on Cablevision's servers for later viewing did not constitute a direct copyright infringement by Cablevision, there being no 'copy' made since the files were in RAM and buffered for only a 'transitory' duration. The Supreme Court asked the Obama DoJ to submit an amicus curiae brief, giving its opinion on whether or not the film companies' petition for review should be granted. The government did indeed file such a brief, but the content of the brief (PDF) is probably not what the film companies were expecting. They probably thought they had this one in the bag, since some of the very lawyers who have been representing them have been appointed to the highest echelons of the Obama DoJ. Instead, however, the brief eloquently argued against the film companies' position, dismembering with surgical accuracy each and every argument the film companies had advanced."
The Media

Newspaper Execs Hold Secret Meeting To Discuss Paywalls 390

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the shhh-it's-a-secret dept.
Techdirt got wind of a secret meeting by newspaper execs, complete with antitrust lawyers, to discuss how to proceed on the issue of implementing paywalls going forward. Of course, if newspapers decide to all lock away their content that just means the rest of us will have a bunch of great journalism talent to pick from soon thereafter. "You may have noticed a bunch of stories recently about how newspapers should get an antitrust exemption to allow them to collude -- working together to all put in place a paywall at the same time. That hasn't gone anywhere, so apparently the newspapers decided to just go ahead and try to get together quietly themselves without letting anyone know. But, of course, you don't get a bunch of newspaper execs together without someone either noticing or leaking the news... so it got out. And then the newspapers admitted it with a carefully worded statement about how they got together 'to discuss how best to support and preserve the traditions of news gathering that will serve the American public.' And, yes, they apparently had an antitrust lawyer or two involved."

Slashdot Top Deals

The reward for working hard is more hard work.

Close