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


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

Comment Re:Interesting copyright infrigement definition (Score 1) 115

A DMCA takedown request doesn't prevent you from distributing your work. It informs somebody else that continuing to distribute your work is legally risky, and the somebody else has to decide whether to take your stuff down or face possible liability.

By this definition nobody distributes their copyrighted work themselves: editors, printing companies and transporters do it for book authors, music companies, cd printing plants and transporters do it for musicians, etc. So by your definition it's essentially impossible to interfere with the author's exclusive distribution right. That's nonsensical.

Comment Interesting copyright infrigement definition (Score 2) 115

Quoting the article:

Noting that ‘repeat’ means to do something “again or repeatedly” while an ‘infringer’ is “[s]omeone who interferes with one of the exclusive rights of a copyright,” the Court of Appeals goes on to broaden the scope significantly.

“Copyright infringement is a strict liability offense in the sense that a plaintiff is not required to prove unlawful intent or culpability, and a user does not have to share copyrighted works in order to infringe a copyright,” its opinion reads.

That's an interesting copyright infringement definition. I know the MPAA or RIAA are not liable under the DMCA when they misuse it to take down the video of a bird singing or a Ubuntu iso file. But in doing so they are interfering with the copyright holder's exclusive distribution right and thus are 'infringing' based on plain copyright law and thus could be sued on that basis. Furthermore we know they abuse the DMCA regularly and thus they are 'repeat infringers' so their ISP should cut off their Internet access, even if they don't illegally share copyrighted works. Sounds promising...

Comment Re:Mail-only voting (Score 1) 454


Dumbass to you too sir. (I didn't know this was a greeting. Must be an american idiom)

People do this in their homes, you know, where they receive their mail. If people are coming into your home and strongarming you, you have some other serious issues to contend with.

A lot of people have spouses or parents coming into their homes ready to play the peer-pressure or wholesale strong-arming game. After all if 1 in 4 women experience domestic violence how many would merely be forced to vote for the right party? How many cases of unprovable vote coercion would even be reported? How many would be investigated?

As to getting a meeting where everyone brings their blank ballots, there is no way to keep that shit secret! It will be found out, and the law will be on their ass! It's not going to happen, so you can put your tinfoil hat down, this isn't a hollywood movie.

Indeed this is different and not a hollywood movie. It's history. While what happened in Chile did not involve mail-in it qualifies as strong-arming on a scale large enough to clear the "no way to keep that shit secret!" threshold. And yet it worked for decades...

Comment Re:Stop treating this like it were binary (Score 2) 332

You do have a few bad eggs, as with any profession.

It's not just a few bad eggs. It's all the other eggs that support the bad eggs, cover up their lies, refuse to hold the bad eggs accountable for their actions. So many of the eggs are rotten in this way, often without even realizing it, that any egg that does try to speak up will get broken and thrown out in no time.

Comment Re:Why OS? (Score 1) 140

Voting machines should be open-source coded in assembly language to run directly on the hardware, and the hardware should be open source

Open-source software and hardware is useless for voting computers. What matters is allowing voters to verify that the hardware and software used on election day is the one that was audited. But of course nobody in their right mind would allow a random voter to hook up a hardware probe or run his own code(*) on the voting computer on election day!

(*) I hope you were not thinking of letting the (lying?) voting computer audit itself!

Comment Re:What's the threat model? (Score 1) 140

Voting machines should be simple devices for counting votes, not full blown computers running a general purpose OS. With a bare minimum of functionality there is less attack surface and less need to patch anything.

Even the simplest electronic voting machine can cheat and yet even they cannot be audited by voters on election day. So you're telling us that voters should trust the people they are voting out of office to organize fair elections! That's quite insane.

Comment Re:What's the threat model? (Score 1) 140

Unpatched XP? So what? What's the threat model?

Right. Patched or unpatched does not make much difference. The important thing is that they run a full blown OS, specifically Windows XP, which means 45 million lines of proprietary unauditable code (trade secret). And that's not counting all the other software the manufacturer added on top of it to turn it into a voting computer.

So an attacker has a wealth of juicy targets: the display driver, touchscreen controller, hundreds of drivers, etc. Anything he changes will be a straw in the middle of a haystack... even more so if he works for the manufacturer or is part of the team that defines the reference software platform.

Plus none of that matters for the voter: he will never be allowed to run a debugger or hook up a hardware monitor on election day to verify that the voting machine has not been tampered with, and with good reason since that would allow him to tamper with it. So even a knowledgeable voter will never be able to verify that the voting computer used on election day has not been hacked, which is totally unlike the situation for regular paper ballots boxes.

Comment Seen that before (Score 1) 233

Housewives hoping that the washing machines of the future will give them more free time may be in for a disappointment. Increased productivity is one of the expected benefits of washing machines, but a new study claims that they will have little impact. The study showed that nearly 36 percent of Americans housewives say they would be so apprehensive using a washing machine that they would only watch the load. Meanwhile, UK housewives were even more cautious at 44 per cent. "Currently, in the US, the average housewife spends about an hour a day washing -- time that could potentially be put to more productive use," said Mike Sikav, research professor at the University of Michigan Washing Research Institute. "Indeed, increased productivity is one of the expected benefits of washing machines."

Comment Re:Motion Sickness (Score 1) 233

I get motion sick if I try to read anything (book, map, phone, computer) in a moving car or train. I'll get zero productivity gain from a self driving car. Not sure what percentage of the population has the same issue, but I doubt it's insignificant.

I have no trouble using a computer on a car and do so regularly. Not sure what percentage of the population has no issue with motion sickness, but I doubt it's insignificant. (Yeah, we're both right.)

Comment Re:Why are you people so worried about this? (Score 5, Insightful) 116

Unless you're clearly up to no good, you don't have to worry about spyware like this.

You mean up to no good like Angela Merkel, Chirac, Sarkozy and Hollande the last three French presidents, and 35 world leaders?

But of course you don't need to be a celebrity or a politician to be up to no good. You could be trying to help people through a humanitarian organization like the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, , or you could just have said something bad about the government of a minor island, etc.

And even if you're not one of the above 'bad people', you could simply be one of the 90% of people who are collateral surveillance victims. So no, you don't need to be up to no good to be under surveillance and that's something to be concerned about.

Comment Re:Don't Sync (Score 1) 67

I would hope that the rental company would reset the system in part of their cleanup/inspection after return, however.

Given that they don't seem to check tire pressure or verify wiper fluid level (both of which impact safety), I think expecting them to reset the infotainment system is pretty unrealistic.

Comment Re:Misleading (Score 1) 154

Planes do detect other planes in proximity with the aptly-named proximity warning. Miles in advance. With beeps buzzes and autopilot disengagement. They are called ACAS.

Given that, to quote Wikipedia, while larger civil aircraft carry weather radar, sensitive anti-collision radar is rare in non-military aircraft, ACAS either does not detect planes that don't have a transponder, or need to rely on external systems to do so. Car autopilots can neither rely on other cars and pedestrians having transponders, nor on some central authority warning them when they're about to hit something. Thus they have to detect obstacles entirely on their own which requires a whole lot more sophistication than plane autopilots (which is also why planes have had autopilots for over 30 years and cars are just beginning to get them).

Comment Re:Misleading (Score 1) 154

A car autopilot has to be much more sophisticated than aircraft ones because pedestrians, bicycles and even other cars don't have a transponder broadcasting their position and speed at all times. Furthermore in the air there are essentially no stationary obstacles (mountains and relief don't count: they are well mapped), whereas on the ground there are tons of obstacles (from parked cars to road work, construction areas encroaching on the road, etc). Plus the pilots of other aircrafts are nowhere as crazy and unpredictable as car drivers (fortunately).

Slashdot Top Deals

The difference between a career and a job is about 20 hours a week.