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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: No brainer (Score 1) 173

Ok, so I should have said there is no legal definition of pirating concerning copyright.

Most people would have read that into the comment seeing how the entire discussion being replied to was about copyright. But I guess I should admit that I did not account for the one interpretation by someone not following along.

Comment Re:No (Score 1) 173

Check out section 108 of the US copyright law. It provides exceptions for libraries and archival libraries. You really have no "copyright" say in the matter with Internet Archive is a bonafide library and your legal rights granted by copyright do not apply to them.

Other sites, yes. But not for the internet archive.

Comment Re: No brainer (Score 2) 173

Internet Archive is recognized as a bona-fide library organization recognized by the library of congress and US copyright office and as such is immune from most copyright laws in their pursuit of archiving and allowing access- with some restrictions of course.

Section 108 lays out the framework but US regulations provide more specifics in the exemptions and uses. As far as I know, they fall completely within the scope of the laws and limitations even if they ignore the robots.txt because the copyright law creates an exception to the rights imposed by law concerning libraries.

Even though there is no legal definition of pirating, I don't think they apply to even the common definition if translated to legal means as they are exempt from the restrictions normal people and organizations are subject to.

Comment Re:Just like finding a crashed airliner under the (Score 1) 296

Subs are found by the noises they make, not looking for debris in their wake. The US has a vast network of underwater listening microphones stretched out across the Atlantic and the pacific which would be the first indication of a sub of the type NK has. Not to mention that passive sonar is likely already employed (given the nature of the NK threats and US banter) and any NK sub is likely already being tracked so if it moves it would be a lot easier to detect than a crashed airliner.

I'm not going to say it would be easy, but it would be a lot easier to detect than a crashed airliner that went off radar in an area known for strong and unpredictable currents.

Comment Re:/. won't either (Score 1) 448

Maybe the Burger King restaurants in your area operate differently, but in my area, it seems like every sandwich and side has been sitting around long enough to make it luke warm and barely palatable. Even slices of cheese do not melt. It is awful. The only chance at getting something hot and fresh is if you find a bunch of cars going through the drive through during the dinner rush or something and even then, you need to be at the tail end of it.

It is a shame too. Because if you do get a fresh sandwich and fresh french fries or onion rings, they are quite good. IT is almost worth chancing it every once in a while when the lines for the neighboring restaurants are full and there are only a couple cars at the BK drive thru. (a side note, the Wendy's in my area seem to be like that too.) Everywhere else seems to get enough business to either keep the food in the warmers fresh or to be made to order or something.

This stunt by BK- regardless of how stupid it seems, will not impact if or when I go to Burger King in the future. Other factors get in the way first.

Comment Re:Uhm... (Score 1) 566

I find it highly strange that of all the things to be thankful or positive about in this country with its currently divided politicking, you pick sexual behaviors and killing unborn children (fetus if you must but it is the same). I can understand people wanting to get their jollies however they can but killing kids doesn't seem to fit unless you are one of those crazy idiots who think the world is over populated or that certain people are too stupid to practice birth control and need a second chance and not reproducing after the fact. Perhaps I'm wrong and it is just a sexual fetish for you.

Oh well, I think you are wrong about Denmark and Uganda but I guess since I simply do not understand the killing kids thing, I'm probably missing something in your logic.

Comment Re:Brilliant! (Score 1) 360

It wouldn't be an arrest and detainment, it would be an arrest and conviction of using unlicensed encrypted communications or something similar. You see, if they make it illegal to have encryption without a back door, a crime is already committed when they discover it. No need to wait for him to follow through with another crime or anything. When he pops onto the law's radar, they try to monitor him, if they find they cannot because his encryption has no back door, whether he was planning something or not, he has already broken a law (if they get their way).

Comment Re:Amber Rudd is dim (Score 1) 360

I'm sure she is fully aware there are other apps not covered by UK laws. All that will happen is that it will become illegal to use those apps without back doors and anyone suspected of extremist views will eventually be checked to see if they are using them. If so, they will be arrested and charged before they plow through a crowd of people or whatever. It isn't a hard problem to solve.

Comment Re:Uhm... (Score 1) 566

You mean like federalism? You know, with a limited federal government and the states and local governments taking much of the role of governing the people where it is also easier to find like minded people and influence change? And if we limit those to state constitutionally mandated roles, we can preserve much of the liberty for ourselves as long as we do not trample on other people's rights in our pursuit of happiness.

But moving (voting with your feet) is not always an option for some people. Resources, family, and other obligations could prevent someone from seeking greener pastures. So it is important to have a strong federal government in respect to its limited powers to ensure some rights and privileges simply are not trampled on. I would suggest those within the bill of rights and later amendments are a good start.

I'm not trying to toss gasoline into a fire by smaller republics is somewhat how the country was founded. The original federal government superseded a confederation of countries (the original 13 colonies) and took over only the roles in which were seen as required to provide uniformity among the states in trade with each other and to deal with foreign powers.

Comment Re:Uhm... (Score 1) 566

I won't say his lies are true, I will say they are unimportant to me or anything substantial. Obama wiretapping trump tower? Who cares? It is not like he will be prosecuted or anything. Lock Hillary up? Who cares, I would rather nothing be done at all than what she would have done if elected. It's insignificant if she is locked up or roaming the streets freely- she just cannot do the damage I expected her to do. Besides, most politicians do get away with murder. Just ask Ted Kennedy- there once was a senator from Mass. He went out in search of some ass. Lucked up and found it, but fucked up and drowned it, and that wasn't even the end of his ass. They say he was doing around 190 mph when his car left the road- because that is how more force from the impact it would take to knock her panties off and put them in the glove box.

But I don't care if he lies. He isn't pressing the reset button with Russia after criticizing the previous administration for frustrating their moves and then spending the next 7 years complaining about Russia running wild. So far, Trump's lies have only impacted the number of democrats in office and little more. I'm not sure that is a bad thing or a good thing but I'm sure it is insignificant in the bigger picture.

Comment Re:Is this news going to bring them more business (Score 1) 164

I don't think I was clear, people actually think that if you have nothing to hide, there is nothing to worry about. In response to the parent, it won't bring the Geek Squad more or less business because anyone in the know will already be in a habit of avoiding them in the first place (whether they have something to hide or not). Those who don't will not care because they "have nothing to hide" and don't believe evidence can or would be planted onto a computer for a $500 bounty so some FBI agents can look like they are doing something to justify their pay as they sit in the mall food court checking out the tween girls spending daddy's money and acting all grown up.

Comment Re:Is this news going to bring them more business (Score 2) 164

Not only did I read the summery, I read the article. But thanks for not reading the parent post who asked if this would hurt or help Geek Squad's business.

The answer to this as I stated is that a lot of people do not think they have anything to worry about because "if you have nothing to hide" and they will be oblivious about this article and its implications when they take their computers into best buy to get them fixed..The people in the know, are people who already would go somewhere else or do it themselves so it wouldn't likely affect their business at all.

Comment Re:Is this news going to bring them more business (Score 1, Interesting) 164

If you have nothing to hide, why should it matter either way?

Actually, it will likely not impact them at all because anyone who gives a fuck and knows about this likely wouldn't be taking their computers to the geek squad in the first place.

More interesting though might be a labor claim that Best Buy might have against these employees if they pocketed the cash and where working on the clock while doing the FBI's bidding. I don't know how it would be different than a company claiming ownership of a program you wrote on their resources while on the clock at their job.

Comment Re:Why didn't you jus publish the photos? (Score 1) 299

Why would it be contempt of court? Was he ordered not to publish them?

You can only be in contempt of court if you disobey or fail to faithfully follow an order issued by the court. There is no such thing as an implied order either.

The cops likely wanted the photos before the story behind them could be written and once the cops had them, it would become part of a trial and therefore public record if used as evidence. Doing it like this would be giving any news organization the right to publish the photos without paying royalties. This guys real reason seems to be motivated by monetary losses and not the stated reasons. If the events played out like he says, he is in no more of a position of confidence than a tourist or random stranger. He had no special access to witness the fight. The only difference is that he won't get paid for the use of the photos if they become evidence.

Slashdot Top Deals

You're using a keyboard! How quaint!

Working...