Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:I actually feel for NATO (Score 1) 134

As i recall, still ads were shown from the auditorium opened, usually 20-30 minutes before the movie. At 5 minutes before the movie, the lights dimmed, and motion ads started. Anyone arriving then were considered late, and were shown to their seat by an attendant with a torch. At the set time for the movie, the doors closed, and the lights went all the way out including the exit lights, the volume turned up, and then the feature started. At the end of the feature, the exit lights would come on, then ambient lights would slowly increase during the end credits, and afterwards, an admonition to remember to not leave anything behind, and to leave the theater orderly, letting those sitting close to the exit leave first. Followed by more still ads.

Interesting - my recollection is slightly different (AU theatres, so ... could be regional differences).
Everyone leaves, theatre is cleaned. There might be a static screen showing, but more than likely curtains are closed. People start to file in.
At the start time for the movie, the lights dim halfway and the ads start playing (static ads). Anyone arriving can still see, no flashlight needed - but at least we had batteries rather than flames.
At ten minutes in, the lights dim and video ads started. At this point the kids behind you start kicking the seats.
At fifteen minutes in, the previews started and the kids are running around the theatre bored out of their minds.
At anywhere from twenty to thirty minutes in, the film is cued.

Of course by that time, the crowd is completely pissed off and Homer's "Start The Movie" chant is live.

And that's why I can't stand going to the movies.

Comment Re:A single domain was silenced. (Score 2) 207

Well, since the figures I've seen bandied around are that protection from this level of attack would be about USD100-200K per annum, this effectively means that unless you have a lot of money or a company willing and able to pay what amounts to protection money, you potentially won't be permitted to speak - doing so with an uncomfortable topic for someone gets you knocked offline. Pay the wrong mob and you get to pay again, and again, and again.

One potential outcome may be that truly personal sites will become impossible to support and host; especially if you have any content that could be seen as controversial. You will have to pay someone to host it for you. If they agree, and it doesn't cost THEM too much, and it's not controversial - fine. Want to promote a social cause? Sorry, you can't afford to. Get back into the bit mines, peon. And this fits nicely into the whole cloud thing too, where you don't need anything in your own datacentre, host it on someone else's computer.

I'm waiting for the first wave of destruction to hit the major cloud providers - if this network supposedly of DVRs can deliver 1-1.5Tbps, and you factor in another dozen of similar size, you're talking 15-20Tbps directed at a target. I doubt even Google and the CDNs can withstand that for very long without service impacts, and that's not even factoring in attacks that actually have a little brainpower behind them.

Comment So basically ... the attack wins? (Score 5, Informative) 212

Seems to me the attackers win, at least in the short term, because the caching and CDN provider (who I expect was probably contracted and paid, although it's entirely up to Brian how he handles his business affairs, it does seem likely) takes the site off the air anyway. That being the case ... what's the point of having that contracted relationship, if they dump you anyway?

Comment Re:Stop whining! Httpv2 is good (Score 1) 86


- If you run a webserver, go get yourself letsencrypt, use cloudflare or namecheap has cheap ssl.
- Enable http2 on nginx (if you are using it, use it well)
- Enjoy faster loading time.

Your welcome.

- The argument against https is pointless.

Let me rephrase that:


- If you run a webserver, install this software, just trust us it's fine; redelegate your DNS to this company with-whom-I'm-totally-not-involved so they proxy all your connections and know who's visiting your site (and can sell or hand it over to whatever TLA you like); or pay money to another organisation for a set of we-promise-they're-unique-and-secure-numbers and we would totally never be compromised or behave unethically [cough] Symantec [cough] DigiNotar [cough] Verisign [hack] [cough];
- Do it my way because spinach and everything supports enforced HTTPS, and the peons can do without
- Don't worry that your data usage just doubled for HTTPS, it's only $50 a month extra for the upgraded plan and everyone can get gigabit fiber anyway.

You'rE unwelcome here.

- The argument against https is my-way-or-the-highway so screw you.

There, I think I covered it all.

Submission + - Malibu Media stay lifted, motion to quash denied

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: In the federal court for the Eastern District of New York, where all Malibu Media cases have been stayed for the past year, the Court has lifted the stay and denied the motion to quash in the lead case, thus permitting all 84 cases to move forward. In his 28-page decision (PDF), Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke accepted the representations of Malibu's expert, one Michael Patzer from a company called Excipio, that in detecting BitTorrent infringement he relies on "direct detection" rather than "indirect detection", and that it is "not possible" for there to be misidentification.

Comment Re:Actually 3rd point was agreement with trial jud (Score 1) 23

Actually whoever the new guy is, I don't find the site to be "improved" at all; seems a little crummy. The story was butchered and incorrectly interpreted, and the all important software for interaction seems less interactive.

But what do I know?

As to my absence I've been a bit overwhelmed by work stuff, sorry about that, it's no excuse :)

Comment Actually 3rd point was agreement with trial judge (Score 4, Informative) 23

The story as published implies that the ruling overruled the lower court on the 3 issues. In fact, it was agreeing with the trial court on the third issue -- that the sporadic instances of Vimeo employees making light of copyright law did not amount to adopting a "policy of willful blindness".

Submission + - Appeals court slams record companies on DMCA in Vimeo case

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: In the long-simmering appeal in Capitol Records v. Vimeo, the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld Vimeo's positions on many points regarding the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. In its 55 page decision (PDF) the Court ruled that (a) the Copyright Office was dead wrong in concluding that pre-1972 sound recordings aren't covered by the DMCA, (b) the judge was wrong to think that Vimeo employees' merely viewing infringing videos was sufficient evidence of "red flag knowledge", and (c) a few sporadic instances of employees being cavalier about copyright law did not amount to a "policy of willful blindness" on the part of the company. The Court seemed to take particular pleasure in eviscerating the Copyright Office's rationales. Amicus curiae briefs in support of Vimeo had been submitted by a host of companies and organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, Public Knowledge, Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Microsoft, Pinterest, Tumblr, and Twitter.

Slashdot Top Deals

As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name. -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie