Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

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:More like 11 reasons to be depressed about tech (Score 1) 282

9, is downright funny, there is, by definition, less than 1 pound of water in 1 pound of beef, unless this guy thinks cattle magically transmute h2o into something else.

"It takes an astounding 1799 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef".

And as soon as that cow is slaughtered, all the water magically disappears for ever. Oh wait, it actually goes back into the environment all ready to produce more cows. Dimbulb, meet hydrological cycle.

Comment Re:solving aging (Score 1, Troll) 282

There are plenty of immigrants who come to the US with nothing, and make it. If you don't want to work, just admit it, and stop whining that your problems are all because of the one-percenters.

The first quoted sentence makes a far-reaching claim with important implications if true. Yet you have seen fit to make that claim without any attempt at quantification. I do not doubt that there are "plenty" of immigrants who come to the USA with nothing (or very little), and "make it" - for some values of "plenty" and "make it". By the latter, do you mean a billion dollars? A hundred million? One million? Comfortable respectability? Or what?

More important by far, what percentage of those immigrants do you think "make it"? We always hear about the successful ones - even if they comprise only one in a million (as seems likely to me). Just as we hear that "anyone can become rich in America" (especially if they are born rich) and "anyone can become President" (especially if they are born very rich indeed, and into the right dynasty).

I assume that you are not actually a one-percenter yourself - or, more to the point, a 0.01%er, as they are the people who have the power and the really big fortunes. So your remarks are of interest, if only as an example of that odd phenomenon: the "Stockholm Syndrome" that causes so many disadvantaged, exploited Americans to stand up for their exploiters. See, for example, Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America": 'The largely blue collar citizens of Kansas can be counted upon to be a "red" state in any election, voting solidly Republican and possessing a deep animosity toward the left. This, according to author Thomas Frank, is a pretty self-defeating phenomenon, given that the policies of the Republican Party benefit the wealthy and powerful at the great expense of the average worker. According to Frank, the conservative establishment has tricked Kansans, playing up the emotional touchstones of conservatism and perpetuating a sense of a vast liberal empire out to crush traditional values while barely ever discussing the Republicans' actual economic policies and what they mean to the working class. Thus the pro-life Kansas factory worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically'. (Amazon blurb).

Comment Re:Good! (Score 1) 161

Yes, "radicalization" is a far more dangerous standard than "hate speech". To be a "radicalizer", you don't need to attack anyone or call for violence. All you really need to do is criticize government policy. Indeed, calling for an end to violence could get you arrested - if it's your government's violence.

Comment Re:Ready to (Score 1) 280

You could make a really cool history-of-air-interceptors poster by showing everything that has intercepted a TU-95 "Bear" over it's long history of pulling this shit.

You could make an equally cool posters by showing all the countries that have had actual bombs dumped on them by B-52s, and how many deaths they caused. Starting with the more than 7 million tons dropped on Vietnam alone (more than four times the weight dropped on Nazi Germany in the whole of WW2). And not forgetting the really cool episode when they dropped four thermonuclear bombs on Spain.

Bears have hardly ever dropped bombs in anger. They just fly around to remind forgetful people that Russia does have thermonuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them. (N.B. Not Bears any longer).

Comment Re:Ready to (Score 1) 280

The first article you link to says this:

"In 2014, Russian military planes violated Estonian airspace seven times, approached Latvian airspace more than 180 times and approached Lithuanian airspace more than 150 times, World Affairs reported".

The Estonian case is one I have already dealt with; at its narrowest, the Gulf of Finland is only 50 kilometres wide between Estonia and Finland, leaving a gap of about 5 kilometres (3 miles) for aircraft to fly through if they wish to avoid both national air spaces. When hundreds of flights are necessary, it is quite likely that one in a hundred might briefly stray into national air space on one side or the other; and that is clearly what has been happening.

As for the rest of the "indictment", it's absurd. "Approached" Latvian air space more than 180 times? "Approached" Lithuanian air space more than 150 times?? What the hell is that??? If you take the view that encroaching on national air space is wrong (which I do), you presumably also agree that not encroaching on it is OK. Approaching it would be an instance of not encroaching, so what's all the fuss about? It's glaringly, pathetically obvious that the authors of the piece were trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, and all they had to work with were the (alleged) seven encroachments into Estonian air space.

Rather than work through the rest of the articles, I shall deal with your more general points.

"The fact is that Russia is a hostile nation, it's invaded Ukraine, and it's invaded Georgia, it can't pretend it's an innocent bystander that's merely hard done by as you're implying it is".

This is terribly, frighteningly wrong. (Frightening because Russia, like the USA, has the capacity to destroy all life on Earth; and may well do so if it is attacked with thermonuclear weapons or other WMDs. So trying to provoke a war with it is literally suicidal). First, to say that Russia is "a hostile nation" is meaningless. Hostile to whom? No nation (with the possible exception of the USA) is hostile to everyone. Actually, Russia is an outstanding example of a nation that much prefers to mind its own business, and never fights unless it is attacked or seriously threatened first. (As the old French saying goes, "Cet animal est tres mechant; Quand on l'attaque, il se defend").

It is factually wrong to allege that Russia has invaded Ukraine. It hasn't. Never. (Well, not since 1943 when it counterattacked to drive the Nazis out of Ukraine - something that a few of the more fanatical Ukrainians of today have said they regret). As you know, the first Russian state was centred on Kiev over 1,000 years ago. In the 17th century there was a lot of fighting in the area ("Ukraine" literally means "borderland") between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, also between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Long before the USA was invented, Russia had conquered all of present-day Ukraine including Crimea. In 1853-56 Britain, France and Turkey invaded Russia to preempt any further expansion. What part of Russia did they choose to invade? Yes, Crimea! The Russians sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives to defend Crimea - the war is generally said to have been a defeat for Russia, but it remained in possession of Crimea while the invaders withdrew. This was before the similarly bloody American Civil War. Russians would as soon give up Sevastopol as Americans would agree to give up Gettysburg or The Alamo.

There was never any Ukrainian state until 1991, when it was created by default within the borders of the Ukrainian SSR that had preceded it. Crimea, of course, was transferred from the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR by Khrushchev (himself a Ukrainian) - without the slightest idea or intention that this would lead to it being lost to Russia due to future events. From 1991 Russia leased the naval base of Sevastopol from Ukraine, and had the right to quarter several thousand soldiers and sailors there. When the illegal and extremely violent US-sponsored coup d'etat overthrew Mr Yanukovych and installed the present illegitimate regime in Kiev, the US government confidently anticipated taking over Sevastopol as a NATO base pointed at the heart of Russia. (They had even ordered the curtains and furniture, and the US Navy was moving across the Black Sea). At that point the people of Crimea, horrified by the slaughter of ethnic Russians and Russian sympathizers in Odessa, Donetsk, Lugansk and other places, held a referendum which resulted in an overwhelming vote to become part of Russia again. The Russian government agreed, and the wishes of the Crimean people were fulfilled. How can any believer in democracy have a problem with that?

As for "invasions", it has been pointed out that if Russia had invaded Ukraine it would have taken over the whole country in a week at most. Instead, it has given (mostly humanitarian) aid and support to the people of Donetsk and Lugansk, who have been bravely resisting the Kiev regime's continuous efforts to exterminate them - a genocide which the Western media have resolutely ignored.

As for Georgia, after some years of encouragement by the USA and Israel, in 2008 the Georgian armed forces violently invaded South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Russians responded promptly, flung them back into Georgia and completely subdued them. Although they could easily have occupied Georgia and taken it back into Russia, the Russian forces just as promptly left Georgian territory.

In the past 25 years, meanwhile, the USA has launched blatantly illegal unprovoked invasions of Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq (twice) and Somalia. It has continuously occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, causing a conservatively estimated 2.8 million deaths in Iraq alone. It then devised the technique of creating terrorist "glove puppet" organizations to do its dirty work for it, of which Al-Qaeda and ISIS are only the best known. It is literally unbelievable that anyone of reasonable intelligence and goodwill could honestly criticize Russia for "aggression" when the USA - Russia's main critic - has been guilty of crimes thousands of times worse than anything Russia could even be accused of.

Comment Re:Ready to (Score 1) 280

As I have pointed out in another reply, the Americans are also known to fly with their transponders off. I do not believe this breaks any law, unless done inside another nation's air space - in which case that nation's laws would apply. As for civilian aircraft not being able to see military aircraft, if the latter have their IFF turned off it is obviously entirely up to them to see and avoid any civilian aircraft - which they are obviously more than able to do. A radar that can detect 50 targets (including supposedly "stealthy" aircraft) simultaneously can probably manage to keep track of a few lumbering airliners and the like.

Moreover, it is only common sense to assume that the military aircraft in such a case would also fly at a height where civilians do not fly.

Comment Re:Ready to (Score 1) 280

As I posted yesterday,

"It's worth noting that the reach of "national air space" over the sea is defined as 12 nautical miles from the nation's coast line. That's about 22.25 kilometres. Amusingly, the shortest distance between the coasts of Finland and Estonia turns out to be about 50 kilometres, rendering it quite hard to fly along the Gulf of Finland without infringing either Finnish or Estonian air space".

One wonders what possible harm anyone imagines could have resulted from a "strategic airlifter" (a huge cargo aircraft) encroaching on Finnish air space by one kilometre, for less than one minute? Surely any kind of friendly neighbour would let it pass. It's rather like having your next-door neighbour back his car a couple of feet into your drive while turning around. You could make a federal case out of it, or you could just ignore it.

But there are some very powerful (and malignant) people who are determined to make a federal case out of everything, as far as Russia is concerned. Like a violent psychopath who takes exception to a stranger looking at him for a moment, and then tries to start a fight in which he believes he is justified in doing his best to kill or cripple the other.

Comment Re: Ready to (Score 1) 280

Have you actually read the article you cite? I quote:

"...three Russian aircraft approaching the Baltic skies..."

How vague is it possible to get, in what purports to be a news item? I defy anyone to know, from those words, whether the Russian aircraft encroached on any other nation's air space or not. Circumstantial evidence, however, makes it obvious they did not: because, if they had, the article would have said so in ringing tones. Even the headline says only that "Typhoon jets intercept Russian planes that committed 'act of aggression'". The quotation marks around "act of aggression" show that even the Guardian's sub-editors did not consider there to have been a definite act of aggression.

The article explains that, as the Russian aircraft "approached the Baltic skies", they had their IFF switched off. That was the "act of aggression". Presumably the aggression lay in the possibility that, without IFF, they might not be detected. Yet they were detected, and fighters scrambled to "intercept" them (as if that were necessary). Try this article for size:

"Reuters Apr. 30, 2016, 12:22 PM 1,978 MOSCOW - The Russian Defence Ministry said on Saturday it had sent a fighter plane on Friday to intercept a U.S. aircraft approaching its border over the Baltic Sea because the American plane had turned off its transponder, which is needed for identification".


Comment Re:Ready to (Score 2) 280

People said the same about Europe's Eurofighter Typhoon 5 years ago, and yet it's already having to intercept 4.5th Gen Russian fighters that are infringing European airspace in the Baltic.

Could you post some links to sources substantiating that claim? I haven't heard any reports of Russian military aircraft infringing other nations' air space in the Baltic, although I usually follow that kind of news quite carefully.

It's worth noting that the reach of "national air space" over the sea is defined as 12 nautical miles from the nation's coast line. That's about 22.25 kilometres. Amusingly, the shortest distance between the coasts of Finland and Estonia turns out to be about 50 kilometres, rendering it quite hard to fly along the Gulf of Finland without infringing either Finnish or Estonian air space. Especially when media tend to report "close approaches" to air space as being the same as actual encroachments. The shortest distance between England France is 33.1 kilometres, rendering it actually impossible to fly down the English Channel without entering either British or French air space.

Yet it seems only fair that Russian aircraft should be allowed to fly over the Gulf of Finland when travelling westward from St Petersburg and the surrounding area. One wonders, in fact, what harm it would do if Russian military aircraft did encroach marginally on the air space of, say, Estonia. Why would a Russian aircraft flying within, say, ten nautical miles of the coast seem especially threatening when Russia has missiles that could utterly obliterate Estonia within a few minutes?

Comment Re:The 60's kills in slow motion (Score 2) 157

There is ample evidence to suggest that steak and eggs for breakfast at high frequency isn't a good health move for you and I.

That turns out not to be the case. Certainly until you cite a sufficient number of studies that prove your point - of which, I submit, there are none. The salient fact is that those who claim "that steak and eggs for breakfast at high frequency isn't a good health move" can't point to any actual scientific evidence - just a huge amount of, "he said, she said".

It is certainly true that most people don't need to eat breakfast at all: a good pattern is to eat two meals, one at about noon and one at about 6 p.m. That gives your body time to get into the "fasting state" where it uses up a little of its own fat, rather than having it saturated with glucose 24 hours a day. But whenever you do eat, steak and eggs are hard to beat (if you can afford them), especially if accompanied by plenty of green leafy vegetables, some nuts and seeds, and a little fruit and dairy.

And incidentally, that should be "for you and me".

Comment What would be nice... (Score 1) 369

... would be a robot that automatically deletes any post relating in any way to US politics. There is nothing useful to be said about it, apart from the necessity of burning it to the ground and starting over from scratch. And immense amounts of time and effort are wasted arguinbg about these non-issues that have no importance and don't affect anything in the real world.

Slashdot Top Deals

Some of my readers ask me what a "Serial Port" is. The answer is: I don't know. Is it some kind of wine you have with breakfast?