Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Jurisdiction (Score 3, Insightful) 110

The argument is that he had a presence in the US (server) which violated "US's stupid copyright rules". If I was in another country and remote controlled a drone in to the US and blew something up I would be violating US law. Yeah, it's a horrible analogy but it's about as close as you can get where you can visualize the argument.

I don't think it's going to be an easy thing for the prosecutors to prove WHERE he violated US law but that is kind of not an issue any more. KAT is down and essentially gone. The message has been sent -- you dip your toe in the torrent waters above a certain level and your life will be turned upside-down.

Comment Re: Does this surprise anyone??? (Score 1) 308

"Gender is a social construct."

I don't necessarily agree with this. A male dog is not SOCIALLY a male dog because in dog society that is what he learned.

"The question you're posing is a false analogy."

I'm not so sure. You say "gender is a social construct". I say "gender RULES are a social construct". Completely different things.

Lastly, your argument seems to suggest (correct me if I'm wrong) that "social constructs" are either "bad" or "OK to be ignored". If that is the argument you are making, I think you are mostly wrong. I would argue that social rules are behaviors that have evolved because they have some benefit. I think it's ok to stretch them -- and over time they change -- but to abruptly ignore them all together can be damaging to a society not ready to embrace those changes.

Comment Re: Does this surprise anyone??? (Score 1) 308

"But you know, if he believes he is a woman then he is a woman, I guess?"

This is probably an ignorant question (I have no problems claiming ignorance on topics of which I know next to nothing), but what is the difference to believing oneself is a woman and believing oneself is Napoleon? Does the belief that one is Napoleon actually *MAKE* them Napoleon?

Comment Re:"Streaming" Tax (Score 2) 271

"So will YouTube and Twich be affected? "

I'm sure anyone who pays youtube to watch/rent a movie would be subject to the tax. They would also be subject to the tax if they watch free videos. Because 6% of zero is.... carry the one.... Um... zero.

Comment Re:Um, (Score 1) 424

I have no idea what the hell you are ranting about. The DNC will set whatever rules they want -- just like the RNC. Both are "rigged" to a degree. What offends me is the content and attitude of the lead organization which 'claims' to look out for 'protected' groups.

BTW, I support neither Clinton nor Trump. Nor would I support Bernie or Cruz. They are all tea party guests (as in Mad Hatter).

Comment Re:Dear god no (Score 1) 331

"I don't want a movie theater to be a social experience"

That was my first reaction, too -- but after giving it some thought I don't think Cameron MEANT it literally or he picked the wrong word. I think a better word would be a "community" experience. A good crowd can make a good movie great as they react to the film (laughter, cheers, etc).

Comment Re:..doesnt factor in connection cost. (Score 1) 174

"This also doesnt factor in connection cost."

It also doesn't account for housing cost (rent/mortgage). You need a place to WATCH it. It also doesn't account for the cost of a TV averaged out over the life of the TV. You need something to watch it on.

I'm pretty sure we're at a point where we can consider internet access a 'given'. We can argue the point if you like -- but most people don't have internet access to JUST watch netflix, nor do they have running water to JUST get a drink. I think those costs are negligible in virtually all cases.

Comment Re:TFA is not terribly clear... (Score 1) 233

"But I'm not ignoring it, I'm enforcing it. I do not have to assist them in their search."

I think you are confusing "unreasonable search and seizure" with "any search and seizure". Swiping a finger is non-intrusive. Swabbing a cheek is non-intrusive. Maryland V King is a fairly recent example.

Comment Re:TFA is not terribly clear... (Score 2) 233

"Exactly. I am very disappointed that people think it's okay to compel anyone to assist in any way one's own prosecution,"

I knew the wording of this would toss up responses like yours.

This is no different than an order to produce blood/cheek swab or even passwords. The accused have the right to remain silent -- they do not have the right to ignore lawful search warrants. If you really want to keep information that the law cannot touch then either memorize it or have a trusted spouse memorize it.

Slashdot Top Deals

There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson