Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re:Not a nice way to die (Score 1) 429

... the ordinary mousetrap is humane, effective, reusable, and available in multiple sizes. They kill instantly; you'll never find a mousetrap with a live rodent wiggling around in it.

Just don't try to use mouse traps on rats. In my last house I discovered we had rats when the mouse traps started to disappear. I had to anchor the things and then add some rat traps.

It would've saved a lot of grief if I could have allowed my cats into the basement of that place.

Comment Re: Arrest warrent is being drawn up now (Score 1) 337

That's an extraordinary claim, I await your extraordinary evidence with intrigue.

It's a stretch, but with the kind of sentence that hackers tend to face (10x longer than the average rapist is typical, I believe), it's plausible enough to be worth following. Assuming he mounted a defense instead of pleading to something lesser.

Comment Re: Arrest warrent is being drawn up now (Score 1) 337

But that's really the point isn't it? They engineered their network for speedtest URLs to bypass all their security measures.

And if, as part of that engineering effort, someone at a high level was dumb enough to put into writing something to the effect of "yeah, we realize there are issues but we're authorizing anyone with a T-Mobile phone to access any URL with 'speedtest' in it for any purpose they like"... ?

I personally doubt anyone was that dumb, but at the same time this wasn't an accident or the actions of a rogue employee. There's gonna be a chain of decision making inside the carrier to make this happen, and if the kid wants/needs to fight it that's where he needs to dig, or at least threaten to dig.

Comment Re: Arrest warrent is being drawn up now (Score 1) 337

If you want to argue this guy wouldn't be caught you'd need to explain why this guy's bypass of the security measures in place is somehow different to anyone elses.

The simplest argument is that it's because T-Mobile intentionally engineered their network so requests to speedtest URLs bypass all their security measures.

He's probably still breaking the law given how the laws are tilted toward the carriers, but whether T-Mobile wants all the details and history of their speed test hacking to be dug up in discovery and splashed all over the court records is doubtful.

Comment totally annoying (Score 1) 294

My 10 month old son is recovering from a bone marrow transplant. We LIVE in the hospital. We were in a room recently that had a wireless repeater with a bright blue LED. Nothing contributes more to a less sleepful night for a baby (and a parent who sleeps in the room with him) than that single point of annoying light on the ceiling. Seems to me an old school fuse type device that trips when the access point loses power or signal would make more sense than those stupid LED lights.

Comment Re:"the free blah blah blah of space" (Score 2) 209

My (limited) understanding is that material on the moon tends to more "mixed" and less layered (also, see above comment about stratification), making mining less efficient.

True, we'd be hunting for chunks rather than veins. On the other hand, digging should be easier, assuming we're cool with strip mining the Moon.

Asteroid mining seems like more bang for the buck in the long term, especially if you're going after specific materials, but I have a feeling that in order to pull it off successfully we'll need substantial infrastructure in space first.

Comment Re:Unity on Slashdot? (Score 1) 282

Your two statements are contradictory.

They're not. Holding a copyright on a work does not confer one with complete authority as to how that work may be used. The rights which comprise copyright are relatively few; further, they are themselves limited in a number of respects.

For example, copyright on a book does not include a right to prohibit other people from reading the book. The list of exclusive rights that together form a copyright can mostly be found at 17 USC 106. (Again, only for the purposes of US copyright law; I have no idea about foreign copyright law, and I don't care to)

And posting a picture on your website doesn't tell or demonstrate anything.

The conduct of doing so, assuming a website open to the public, is an implicit license to anyone to access and view it (and to make incidental copies in the process of doing so).

If I happen to know that the Mona Lisa hangs in the Louvre, there's nothing wrong with my telling people to go there to see it. And if I happen to know the URL of your picture, there's nothing wrong with my telling people to go there to see your picture; this is so whether I provide people with a link to be manually followed, or an embedded link to be automatically followed such that the picture appears in the web page. I'm not copying it onto my website or anything.

First sale is not profiting in a commercial sense.

It is absolutely that. A used book store will sell copies of works for a profit, because it is a commercial enterprise. It is totally reliant on the first sale doctrine. Ditto however many independent video stores still exist (since it's perfectly legal to rent lawfully made copies of movies that you own).

Commercial use is not fair use.

Well, where the hell were you when the Supreme Court needed your input in 1994 in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music?

There the Court not only found that a commercial use certainly could be a fair use, they even said that it is wrong to treat a commercial use as being presumptively unfair. Commerciality is just an element to be considered, and that's all:

If, indeed, commerciality carried presumptive force against a finding of fairness, the presumption would swallow nearly all of the illustrative uses listed in the preamble paragraph of  107, including news reporting, comment, criticism, teaching, scholarship, and research, since these activities "are generally conducted for profit in this country." Harper & Row, supra, at 592 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Congress could not have intended such a rule, which certainly is not inferable from the common-law cases, arising as they did from the world of letters in which Samuel Johnson could pronounce that "[n]o man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." 3 Boswell's Life of Johnson 19 (G. Hill ed. 1934).

But then I guess you already knew everything you wrong was wrong since you fell the need to try and make your point using an insult.

'Everything you wrong was wrong?' What the hell is that?

Anyway, I called you an idiot because you're clearly an idiot. It had nothing to do with my actual argument. But my advice to you is that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, at least within the context of US copyright law, and you would do yourself, and everyone else a great service if you'd shut the fuck up and learn something from a legitimate, neutral source before you next presume to talk about it.

Comment Re:"the free blah blah blah of space" (Score 1) 209

After all, Moon is made basically of the same material that the Earth was formed with.

Slightly more precise, the Moon is made out of Earth's crust, so primarily consists of the lighter materials.

What a happy coincidence... the Moon is made from exactly the part of the Earth that humans are most familiar with exploiting.

Comment Re:Unity on Slashdot? (Score 3, Informative) 282

You still retain all rights to decide how people may use that photo.

No, you still retain whatever rights you had. You certainly don't have complete authority to decide how other people may use it. So long as other people use it in a manner which doesn't infringe on your copyright, you can't control them at all, in fact.

At no time does making something publicly available give a 3rd party ability to profit from it.

It does for first sale. It does for fair use, if the particular use happens to qualify (commercial uses are fully able to be fair uses). There's a number of other exceptions that can apply as well. For example, if you release a record, other people can record and sell cover versions of it, and the whole intent of this was to allow third parties the ability to profit without the permission of the copyright holder.

This sounds like a perfectly ordinary copyright ruling

In fact, this is an asinine ruling. The court got it right before, when it found that linking to a file which had been put up with authorization was not infringing (which the exact thing you've been claiming was infringing, idiot). Here, the difference was that the underlying files had been put up in an infringing manner. But, rather than tell the rights holder to go after the actual wrong-doer who put them up to begin with, they decided to shift liability to third parties who were not responsible for the underlying infringement. It's very reminiscent of the stupid 'right to be forgotten' cases, in that it tries to sweep things under the carpet by imposing liability on the wrong parties just because they're more convenient.

Comment Re:Well, I thought we had settled this (Score 1) 282

Commercial use is, and it always has been too. This isn't anything surprising to anyone who's done as much as first year of lawschool. There's a big difference between publishing content, even distributing it widely, and making a profit of the said content.

I have no idea about European copyright law, nor do I care, but in the US, there's not any significant difference.

Infringement is essentially any infringement of the rights granted to authors in section 106, which are subject to various exceptions and limitations.

Prima facie infringement makes no distinction between commercial and non-commercial use. That may be relevant in computing damages, but often isn't. A few of the exceptions to copyright may apply in certain circumstances that include non-commercial use, but others apply in any kind of use.

Since no one in the US studies copyright law in their first year of law school, I wouldn't worry too much about what some 1L thinks.

Also I think your hypo with the photograph is wrong. First, 'embedding' is not a right of the copyright holder. Copying is, but in the case of embedding, the Coca-Cola company has not engaged in copying; only you and the end user have. Distribution is, but in the case of embedding, they're not distributing anything; you are, if anyone is. Public display is your best bet, but again, they're not the ones displaying it, you are. Your problem is that you have set up your server to accept requests from users who are not viewing your site, but who may be viewing some other site that is embedding an image from you. That's your fault, and within your control. Your failure to prevent it can be viewed as an implicit license for users to view that material, which kills any argument at direct, and therefore secondary, infringement.

As for the model release, that's a whole different kettle of fish, but certainly wouldn't come back against you.

Comment Re:100% Automation coming soon. (Score 1) 256

But, not far in the future - many of us will see it, if we don't kill ourselves off first, all manual labor will be automated.

Manual labour in controlled and/or homogeneous environments will be automated, yes. Factories, warehouses, farms, transport, etc are all to some degree or another fairly good candidates for this.

Fixing stuff that's broken, though, will remain the domain of humans for a long time. We simply have too much infrastructure that would need to be heavily rebuilt to make it robot-repairable.

It won't be enough jobs for the number of people, but manual labour isn't going away in our lifetime.

Comment Re:Put up or shut up (Score 1) 410

The point here is that the EU is punishing _Ireland_ for giving Apple that deal, and requiring Ireland to make Apple pay back taxes.

Personally, I think it was pretty clever scheme the Irish were running.... attract businesses with what looks like an incredibly low tax rate, wait until the EU blows a gasket, and then (reluctantly, without looking like the bad guy) cash in bigtime.

Slashdot Top Deals

BYTE editors are people who separate the wheat from the chaff, and then carefully print the chaff.