Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Abused? (Score 1) 212

If a restaurant offered "unlimited bread sticks" without the usual stipulation that it's just for people who bought food, then it's not abuse at all to bring 30 of your friends in to chow down so long as it's allowed by the terms the restaurant set. It's being a jackass, yes, but not an abuse.

How is "being a jackass" different from "abuse"?

Comment Re:Abuse? (Score 1) 212

Storage is about $0.25 a gig (Assuming redundant drives) So that 75TB is about $18,000 worth of space for your free service.

You think Microsoft is paying $125 each for a bunch of 1 TB hard drives? 8 TB hard drives sell for $500-600, and I'm sure Microsoft is paying less than that when they buy hundreds of them at a time. Even if they're doing full mirroring instead of something like RAID-6, you're off by a factor of 2.

Comment Re:Judge has it right (Score 1) 164

You are not correct on two fronts. IP spoofing is a common tactic for hiding one's identity on the Internet. If an IP showing in logs was enough to prove guilt, how about we give your IP to a Botnet and let them DOS something, like the Pentagon, masquerading with that IP.

Unless you're also hacking some routing tables, IP spoofing doesn't work for downloading stuff over BitTorrent. It would work for something like a DDoS, where you don't actually care about getting any data back, but not for downloading stuff.

Comment Re:Plausible? (Score 2) 164

In the continuation of the article it says:

"That an outsider could be the pirate is not unlikely. The defendant operates an adult foster care home where several people had access to the Internet. The filmmakers were aware of this and during a hearing their counsel admitted that any guest could have downloaded the film."

So indeed the judges ruling is reasonable...

It's almost as if that was a relevant fact that should have been included in the summary of the article.

Comment Re:Traffic lanes designated to buses or bicycles n (Score 1) 165

Net-neutrality supporters argue against discrimination based on packet-contents...

A few do, but they shouldn't. Network neutrality does not preclude legitimate QoS based on type of data or protocol.

and origination

This part you have correct.

Giving priority to Ford-made buses over Ford-made sedans would've been wrong in their opinion.

Nope, that would be fine. Just like normal QoS prioritizing real-time protocols (e.g. VoIP) over bulk transfer protocols (e.g. BitTorrent) would be fine.

Comment Re:The Patent In Question (Score 2) 108

Fortunately, if Claim 107 was already ruled invalid, summary judgment for invalidity of Claim 1 should be pretty easy to get. Claim 21 should be easy to kill by obviousness. Claim 22 might be indefinite anyway, since it's hard to define the licensing medium as being both "portable" and "not removable". It would probably also be considered obvious, since the only two possibilities are "removable" and "not removable", and I can't imagine that they'd be able to show that making it not removable was difficult enough to be worth a patent.

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