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 WTF? Not all attacks are covert (Score 1) 149

WTF Does he not even consider the possibility that the hacks aren't meant to be truly secret, merely deniable. It would hardly make a very effective threat/warning if the target didn't realize where the attack came from.

It wouldn't make much sense for Putin to say, "Nice democracy you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it," if we believed the DNC hack came from the North Koreans.

Besides, we didn't want stuxnet attributed to us but that didn't able us to guarantee everyone believed someone else did it.

Comment Economics? (Score 4, Informative) 343

$4.7B for a nuclear plant. Is it worth it? Will the company get $4.7B worth of use from this asset? If they put it on the market today, what price would they get?

Does this price reflect the cost of building a new nuclear plant today, or is it horribly inflated by the troubled construction history?

The new planed UK Hinkley Point station has (Wikipedia) "estimated construction cost of £18 billion, or £24.5 billion including financing costs." This is two units with combined 3200MW output. Watts Bar II is 1200MW - so the UK is planing on spending more per MW than this plant cost.

Comment Re:Observations (Score 1) 192

In this case, the human doctors only had a written description (I've posted examples in another comment.)

However, the human doctor can use all the information in the description, whereas the app can only do so if it has a box for entering that information. E.g. "Preliminary laboratory studies are notable for a serum ALT of 6498 units/L, total bilirubin of 5.6 mg/dL, and INR of 6.8." (Actual text from one of the cases.) I expect apps aimed at consumers don't have any way to enter this information. (No, I don't know what it means either. I'm not the sort of doctor that helps people.)

Comment Example cases (Score 2) 192

I managed to track down the actual text of the cases. TFA was only adding the human doctors to an analysis already done with the aps. The aps paper is http://www.bmj.com/content/351... and the cases are in the supplementary material ('data supplement') http://www.bmj.com/highwire/fi...

A 48-year-old woman with a history of migraine headaches presents to the emergency room with altered mental
status over the last several hours. She was found by her husband, earlier in the day, to be acutely disoriented and
increasingly somnolent. On physical examination, she has scleral icterus, mild right upper quadrant tenderness, and
asterixis. Preliminary laboratory studies are notable for a serum ALT of 6498 units/L, total bilirubin of 5.6 mg/dL, and
INR of 6.8. Her husband reports that she has consistently been taking pain medications and started taking additional
500 mg acetaminophen pills several days ago for lower back pain. Further history reveals a medication list with
multiple acetaminophen-containing preparations.

(This one is acute liver failure requiring emergency care).

An 18-month-old toddler presents with 1 week of rhinorrhea, cough, and congestion. Her parents report she is
irritable, sleeping restlessly, and not eating well. Overnight she developed a fever. She attends day care and both
parents smoke. On examination signs are found consistent with a viral respiratory infection including rhinorrhea and
congestion. The toddler appears irritable and apprehensive and has a fever. Otoscopy reveals a bulging,
erythematous tympanic membrane and absent landmarks.

(Acute otitis media - requires 'non-emergent care', i.e. needs professional medical care but is not an emergency)

A 34-year-old woman with no known underlying lung disease 12-day history of cough. She initially had nasal
congestion and a mild sore throat, but now her symptoms are all related to a productive cough without paroxysms.
She denies any sick contacts. On physical examination she is not in respiratory distress and is afebrile with normal
vital signs. No signs of URI are noted. Scattered wheezes are present diffusely on lung auscultation.

(Acute bronchitis, self-care appropriate.)

Comment Re:Haldane (Score 2) 25

Wikipedia was uninformative.
I found a genealogy site with a page for JBS: https://www.geni.com/people/J-...
Unfortunately, sometimes the links are to a 'private' person, at which point the chain is broken.
JBS had a stepchild but no children of his own. His dad was famous, as were his dad's two brothers and his grandfather. One of those (Richard Burdon Sanderson Haldane) was a viscount and Lord Chancellor, but had no sons. The other, Sir William Stowell Haldane had three sons.

William's sons: Thomas Graeme Nelson Haldane (1897-1981): a 'private' child and a son Richard W Haldane. Richard W has four children, all 'private', three of whom have different surnames so we can guess they were daughters.
Archie Richard Burdon Haldane (1900-1982): two children, but they are listed 'private'
Patrick Haldane (1893-1915): no children listed.

So assuming the listings are accurate (no missing children), it is possible that the Nobel Laureate is descended from JBS's grandfather via JBS's uncle William.
The Laureate's full name is Frederick Duncan Michael Haldane, and he goes by Duncan. This pattern of three first names, using the second, appears a number of times in JBS's family tree.

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: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:test (Score 3, Interesting) 155

If you static fired without payload, you'd then have significantly longer between the static test fire and launch (during which something might break) and you'd need to lower the rocket to horizontal to attach the payload and raise it again, again with the potential for breaking something. You'd also have each launch keeping the launch pad occupied for longer.

So, it is a trade-off, and you'd need an intimate knowledge of the rocket and launch operations to know whether SpaceX's choice to test with payload was correct.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real programmers don't write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in BASIC after reaching puberty.